Wingsuits flying up

[hjumper33 0]

This is just a crappy screen grab from a gopro, but it made me think even more of a cool way to show a wingsuit flying up. Maybe diving at a tethered balloon and flaring, or flying under a big bridge. The opening was definitely interesting on this one, basically wound up being able to see a split second of the ground behind me, but still nice and soft. Anyone got any other interesting ideas to show this concept?

[mccordia 73]

The problem with a lot of the 'proof' is the lack of reference (and understanding of perspective). As with your posted image. Even depending on allignment/rotation, the PC is clearly pullled up. And the canopy going 'down' is often a by product of it not being inflated yet, but having weight and thus dropping. Seeing the ground behind you is something any hard opening can produce on a wingsuit jump (even skydive).

Not saying you're not climbing. But also saying, as 'proof' its hard (if not impossible) to judge. And getting objective, measurable results needs to be key.

Setting up a camera on a ridge, at a flyby point and having a wingsuit fly past that (in the clear/open valley) and trying to have a max flare so its clear (seen from the side, at an exact on level angle) that the wingsuit goes beneath the point where the camera is, and comes back up higher, would be the only way. And it would have to be close, as even a few degrees lower or higher will already give it a distorted view.

On the PPC jumps, people are getting 6 to 10 meter 'climbs' over several seconds, after 1000+ ft high speed (nearly headdown) dives, way beyond what we are doing in the base environment. Yet only 6 to 10 meter climbs, where we're seeing claims of climbs up to 100/200 meters at speeds that make a jetfighter look tame (but again, only as seen from the ground at off-angles). Again, before someone gets agressive, nobody is saying there isnt an actual climb happening. But the stuff provided as evidence mostly shows a lack of understanding of perspective. Nothing more.

GPS seems to be our only (buggy) way of getting some truthfull results.
Doing 3D animation/Compositing, Ive spent a lot of time doing image analysis regarding depth/3D allignment. And judging angles from the ground is simple hard, if not impossible. Even a simple video where the wingsuit pilot is clearly going down, can look like he/she is going up is shot from the right angle. Being exactly on level, static (not under canopy or an otherwise moving object) seems to be the only way to really do this.

A simple camera drone thats 'parked' somewhere in the middle the of valley in LB, with a camera aimed straight ahead, might be the safest way of testing/trying to actually capture this on camera in a way that accurately represents the truth.

Diving at balloons and flying under/over bridges recalls public/media stunts that showed these activities to be a less succesfull 'do or die' approach.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[hjumper33 0]

yah i agree completely. I know the reference from the video for my own purposes, but cannot post it for a number of factors, mostly legal. Theres a few bridges that wouldnt be as do or die in a base rig, and I suppose theres quite a few cliffs that would be ok, thats why I was curious to see what other people thought. That flight is a super divey line, and i watched the guy who i followed who shot the video appear to gain altitude and I was below him by about 300 feet when he was under a fully inflated canopy, and then flew by him at about the same level before deploying. It was a crazy view from my perspective as well. If I can edit portions of the video to make it postable I will later because it looks really crazy in real time.

[IronEddie42 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI272CeHZVU

Starts at about 2:20.

Seems pretty definitive to me. LOL.

[Thijs 0]

IronEddie42

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI272CeHZVU

Starts at about 2:20.

Seems pretty definitive to me. LOL.

He/She is flying up relative to you/rest of the group. From the video there is absolutely no way to judge if he is going up relative to the ground.

[OuttaBounZ 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRb3Vw9Y53k

What about Matt's long-lining video @ :50s? Looks clear to me.

Never, under any circumstances, take a sleeping pill and a laxative on the same night.

[The111 0]

IronEddie42

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI272CeHZVU

Starts at about 2:20.

Seems pretty definitive to me. LOL.

Neither definitive nor LOLable. The key to proving absolute motion in any direction is a static reference. The camera and backdrop here are anything but static.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[The111 0]

OuttaBounZ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRb3Vw9Y53k

What about Matt's long-lining video @ :50s? Looks clear to me.

POV like this can never show absolute motion clearly. The schemes suggested by Jarno and hjumper (and countless others in the past) are all very reasonable and pretty much the only way to do this. Outside, fixed lens, low distortion. Some kind of reference line fixed in the camera frame which provides a known indication of "level" over a distance. The flyer passes through the frame in a range such that the camera and reference provide the proof.

To be clear, I'm not expressing any doubt about the physical possibility of this... just being objective about how to analyze video.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[ledballoon 1]

medusa has posted a video from a static reference point gaining altitude over static objects

to make your own 'up wingsuit' video dive and flare underneath any unsuspecting tandem canopy and watch the footage presented to the S&TA before getting booted out

[shveddy 0]

Go to Brevent, hike up to the bottom of that rockslide you guys fly really close to all the time and set up a camera.

Use a bubble level to make sure that the camera is completely horizontal and pointed along the line of flight towards the valley and then set up a string between two poles that runs across the frame at exactly that same level a few feet away.

If you can manage to break the line the string makes across the video image twice in one jump then you have gone up.

Set up multiple such camera angles at regular vertical intervals along the slope to find out how much.

[The111 0]

ledballoon

medusa has posted a video from a static reference point gaining altitude over static objects

I am sure if anybody has the skill to pull it off, Medusa does. But from what I remember of that video it is lacking a level indicator. Those who know the site better can probably deduce level from the backdrop, to some degree of accuracy. Horizon is the best level indicator though. :-) But you're right, it does meet the "static/static" requirement.

ledballoon

to make your own 'up wingsuit' video dive and flare underneath any unsuspecting tandem canopy and watch the footage presented to the S&TA before getting booted out

Tandem canopy not static.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[ledballoon 1]

OK lets make some rules, if the TM gets a shot of your smiley face right after you went underneath him can we reasonably say you must have gone up? that's pretty scientific.

[mccordia 73]

ledballoon

OK lets make some rules, if the TM gets a shot of your smiley face right after you went underneath him can we reasonably say you must have gone up? that's pretty scientific.

No..it just shows you went slower than speed at which the tandem-canopy sinks. Even a 5 to 10 mph fallrate, you will be going 'up' relative to tandems.

Most proof so far is ground cameras looking up. The camera being on level (the setup shveddy lists), is the only way. The rest is only great visuals.

Again, before people start throwing 'shitty little wingsuit' type fits, nobody is saying it is or isn't possible.
Just stating how you'd actually capture it in a way where the 'evidence' gives you some actual hard data. And so far, the 5 to 10 meter climbs logged via (slightly noisy) GPS tracks with FlySight on PPC/Paralog, are the only thing close to actual proof.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[shveddy 0]

mccordia

Most proof so far is ground cameras looking up. The camera being on level (the setup shveddy lists), is the only way. The rest is only great visuals.

You have way more contacts in the european BASE world than I do - get someone to try it. All you'd need is a five or six go pros, a bunch of tripods and someone willing to schlepp it all halfway up a mountain while you take the cable car ;)

Settle the matter once and for all!

[jpengel 0]

shveddy

set up a string between two poles that runs across the frame at exactly that same level a few feet away

No need for a string, just overlay a two dimensional grid (with reference to the horizontal) on the background of the video.

With a properly scaled grid and flight data one could also gather info about the climb: the time and distance it took for the flyer to climb back to the chosen reference altitude, how long they sustained the climb, total altitude gained, etc...

[mccordia 73]

Quote

You have way more contacts in the european BASE world than I do - get someone to try it.

Aside from being interested in factual data, no real drive to do so. There's better things to do in the mountains instead of trying to prove you go up 2 or 3 meters. Wingsuit is a great discipline, but claims and facts often are wide and far apart, and like many others here; Its often just amusing when things are taken way out of context and used as proof or evidence for something, which it actually doesn't show to be all that conclusive. When it comes to proof, GPS readings are so far the only semi-reliable source. And even though are more buggy than apple's latest IOS release.

That aside, GoPro's are never what you want when it comes to judging distances and/or perspective...you want something with as little wideangle/fish-eye distortion on the lens as possible, to get footage one can actually use to gather some data on whats happening.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[WickedWingsuits 0]

If you stand at the finish line of a base base you will see people going up with your own eyes. That is only personal proof of course.

I don't think it is that useful in the wingsuit world though. With enough speed you can go up a bit but I don't think we will see people try and use this technique for any practical purpose. In the race it is just a side effect of going from bloody fast to slow for deployment. The purpose isn't really to buy a few more meters of altitude.

A couple of guys call the move the "cobra". I just call it "please don't hurt me canopy".

Summer Rental special, 5 weeks for the price of 4! That is $160 a month.

Try before You Buy with Wicked Wingsuits - WingsuitRental.com

[mccordia 73]

WickedWingsuits

If you stand at the finish line of a base base you will see people going up with your own eyes. That is only personal proof of course.

If you're standing at the same level the flyers plane out, than that would also be 'actual proof'. Otherwise you're stuck with the same problems in accurately judging how much of an actual climb or drop there is. Which bring us back to incorrect parameters for accurate measurement. Loic already can be seen going 'up' in an Sfly Expert relative to a CRW stack he passes, in the 2005/2006 movie/DVD 'Soulflyers'.
Its all about reference and perspective.

But with cheap quadcopters becoming the norm more and more, for sure at some point we'll get an actual on-level shot that clearly shows what's happening during aggressive flares.

JC
FlyLikeBrick
I'm an Athlete?

[normiss 619]

I think your last two words are exactly correct.
Nothing more than a stall.

V and L are important in this discussion

Lose V, you gots no L.

[dqpacker 7]

tandems go up in videos i see on the youtube