What ring sight do you use????

[avenfoto 0]

Quote

gain, I have years of shooting video covering 1000's of jumps with a box drawn on my goggles. I have no problem with framing.

sweet. but can you honestly say youve never had your ssubject out of frame?

if youre only shooting video, though, with a wide enough lens, i could believe you wouldnt need a site...

or if youre side mount. i never had a problem with sidemount video only and no sight...

[davelepka 4]

Quote

if youre only shooting video, though, with a wide enough lens, i could believe you wouldnt need a site...

or if youre side mount. i never had a problem with sidemount video only and no sight...

I am using a sight, it's a box drawn on my goggles. A sight is simply a reference point, be it on your goggles or hanging on a stick in front of your face.

Neither will tell you what is or isn't in frame. It will tell you the center of the frame, and beyond that, it's up to the jumper to know the boundries of his lenses.

Yes, I am talking about wide angle lenses, but thats what 99% of the people are jumping anyway. Jumping with long lenses has already been covered in this thread.

[DSE 3]

I'd have to debate your point to a degree, Dave.
A concentric sight *does* provide distance info, and does help with framing more than a box drawn on a goggle. If the box on the goggle works for you, that's terrific. But if you're looking for very specific framing distances, the box drawn on the goggle can't help.
The box on the goggle *does not* provide center of frame information that is legal/accurate at all distances. Parallax is different at close and far angles. A concentric can help you measure this, if you're into that sort of detail.
Paper assholes, dots/boxes on goggles, popsicle sticks, bullseyes....they all work to get your subject in frame, and they work fine no matter what you're dealing with, until you want to be a photographer looking for specific measurements or length of angle. This doesn't just apply to skydiving, it applies to any shooting method without a sight window.

[davelepka 4]

From a technical standpoint, you are right about what you say.

As it applies to the dynamic situation of freefall camera flying, the detail you refer to is too fine to apply. The jumper knowing his lenses and proximity are far more reliable than attempting to use a ring sight for accurate framing of a moving subject, while you yourself are also moving.

In these instnaces, it isn't worth the safety risk of a ring sight for the small benefit it may have.

There are situations, mostly more advanced forms of camera flying where these things may be more applicable, but these are for the more advanced camera flyer.

Until a camera flyer reaches such a point in their skill level that the lack of a ring sight is what's holding them back, using one is a risk that's not worth taking, and shouldn' t be suggested to new or upcoming jumpers.

[DSE 3]

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. We're at opposite ends of the discussion, as I feel that if anything, the ringsight can eventually come off, not eventually be added.
The ringsight absolutely is a safety hazard, no doubt. So is a camera of any kind. Especially sidemouns. Like anything else, it can be dealt with in a variety of methods, and can be effectively diminished as a hazard as well or better than any camera with a wide-angle lens, tucked corner, exposed excess chin-strap/ladder lock, flash mount, etc.
Yes, you've got far more jumps than I've got. Conversely, I have a great deal of experience using these sights in ground work, and my instructors (two combined have more jumps than anyone alive) and those I've studied closely in the sport agree that a properly mounted, aimed, and implemented ringsight is essential unless you're flying 130 or greater lenses.
Never have seen your work, it may be that you're at the level of a Tom, Norman, Mike, Joe, or a guy like Laszlo. All of them use a sight. Having jumped for several dozen jumps without a sight and using the paper asshole...I jump with a sight. That said, I'm sure you can teach me all sorts of things.
Bottom line is "whatever works for ya" is whatever works for you.

[pilotdave 0]

I've never used a ringsight. Only times I really wish I had one is for 4-way video. I'll probably get one next year... my team is planning to go to nationals so I'd rather know for sure where my camera is pointing. But I haven't had any real problems with the mark on the goggles method. I never feel like I need one for tandems or most other videos I do.

I'm pretty much always centered well enough that a little cropping here or there will fix it in the stills. But 4-way is a little different than most of the jumps I shoot... gotta be SO tight and right on. It's actually scary... I'm paying so much attention to where I am and where I'm looking that I rarely have any idea how good the jump was for the team. I'm like a goldfish... I only remember the last few seconds. If they nailed a block at the end, I'll think they had a great jump no matter what the rest of it looked like.
But even with stupid over-the-glasses goggles that get really stiff when they're cold and don't fit the same, I rarely feel like I'd do any better with a ringsight.

Guess we'll find out when I get one. Probably a concentric site, since it seems to be the best. If I'm gonna add the snag hazard, I might as well make it worth the risk.

Dave

[davelepka 4]

Quote

Bottom line is "whatever works for ya" is whatever works for you.

I tend to go along with this as well, but generally for things that are '6 of 1 and a 1/2 of the other'. Items where one way or the other is an acceptable means to the same end.

I guess when it involves a safety issue, I tens to lean heavily toward the safer of the two options. I agree that anything attached to a helmet is a snag hazzard, cameras included. In truth, helmets themselves are snag hazzards, as more than one line, RSL, or riser has been snagged under the edge of ProTec. My thinking would be to reduce the number of snag points to the least number possible, and in that equation, the ring sight has to go.

I think another issue is that general aiming of the cameras is rarely the biggest issue between a camera flyer and the footage they seek.

Any properly set up camera helmet with a wide angle lens should pick up about what the jumper is looking at, provided they have a rough idea of how to look at the subject.

What really prevents them from bringing home the good stuff is both their own lack of knowledge, forethought, and general flying ability.

To be good at this stuff, you have to know what the 'ideal' circumstances would be. If this were a more static enviornment, where would you put the light, your subject, yourself, etc. This would be where the knowledge would come into play (this is where your ground-based experience puts you way ahead of the curve).

The next hurdle is the reality that this is not a static enviornment, and that try as you may, things will not always be where you want them. While an infinite number of things could happen, there are a smaller number of scenarios that are more likely to play out once in freefall. Having a plan in place for each of these more likely scenarios, making the best out of the comprimises that each scenario offers is where forethought comes into play.

Lastly it having the fliying skill to get where you need to be, before you need to be there. All of the above factors come into play here because your ideal situation you hoped for may or may not be presenting itself, and one or a combination of your alternate scenarios may be playing out, and you need to make the call as to which way to play your hand, and any limitation you have due ot lack of flying skill will kill your chances to land with footage that will amaze your friends.

I guess my real problem here is that camera flying has become very 'gear focused'. If you have the right helmet, with the right bells and whistles, you're a camera flyer, and probably a good one due to the swank factor on your cool lid.

What seems to escape these folks are the basics I outlined above. I could go back to my first generation Hanson Helmet and Hi-8 camera, and still bring home the bacon on every jump (yeah it's grainy washed-out bacon, but the work would be right).

The only thing I've ever done in skydiving is fly camera. Many years, and many 1000's of jumps, all camera jumps, all approached with the same goal of shoting the perfect video from exit to opening.

To this day I still review every freefall before I turn my tape into the editor. Even when I'm busy as hell, I take the 60 secinds to run it back, and review the actual footage against what I saw in my mind during the jump.

The best thing for me about switching to digital stills is that I get to see every pic I take. There must be 30,000 pictures out there I shot on film, where I handed the roll to the customer, and never got to see frame one. Ever since going to digital, I was able to review each jump, and have since cleaned up my stills to the same sharp point as my video.

I'm not sure if my real beef is the safety issue, or the "I need all the stuff" issue with ring sights. as much as I hate the "I need all the stuff" attitude, I think the real idea is to keep everything as simple as possible, for as long as possible. Add the fewest number of things you need to get the job done. If time proves that you need another gadget to progress, by all means, add it in. Until such time, keep it simple, and safe, and focus on things that will get you results.

Or, just do it whatever way you want. I do really mean that in the nicest way possible. We all know the risks involved, and how much risk we are each willing to take on.