airbigdaddy

Wow, it took me more than a year to reply. My apologies. I'm not on DZ.com much anymore. I still may get around to reaching out to them to ask them what the hell, but in the meanwhile, I'm guessing it's still there. -Lambert- "It's better to be looked over than overlooked."

I have two Pulses. While not quite as much fun to fly as my Stilettos were, I switched over mostly for the sweet openings. (I'm usually jumping camera.) I now have a couple thousands jumps on a Pulse, and I find the flare to be just fine (always have). It takes a little getting used to, but I don't at all agree with the folks who say they don't flare/land well. Now, if they would only start making the bottom skin in a color OTHER than white ... . :) -Lambert- "It's better to be looked over than overlooked."

Sorry for the slow reply; I'm rarely on DZ.com. Life just slowed down a tad recently, so I'm hoping to make some headway on this soon. I'll post an update if anything comes of it. -Lambert- "It's better to be looked over than overlooked."

Yeah, I missed the sarcasm, but my point still stands. There are LOTS of folks who think a 1.5 on an elliptical at somewhat low jump numbers isn't that big of a deal these days. -Lambert- "It's better to be looked over than overlooked."

Honestly not trying to be an ass: Is a 1.5 wing loading on a Katana at 400 jumps really what people are considering conservative these days? While it certainly isn't the most aggressive downsizing I've ever seen, I wouldn't call it conservative by any stretch. I think it's just another sign of the times of what people's definitions of what "conservative" and "aggressive" are. While I did swap out to fly a Pulse from a Stiletto a while back because of the openings since I'm almost always flying camera, I was always amazed at how people saw my 1.6 wing loading on an elliptical canopy (the Stiletto) somehow "super conservative" (even given the fact I had a decent number of jumps already, roughly 2,000-plus, when I first started jumping them). Ironically, most of the people playfully giving me shit back then (and even some here and there these days too) were guys I had personally seen get loaded into (or worked on until they got loaded into) an ambulance as a result of a botched landing on their highly loaded canopies. (This is definitely not a jab at the poster's downsizing schedule or an attempt to get on a soap box; it's just an observation on how perceptions seem to truly have changed tons these last couple decades on what a typical "conservative" approach is to downsizing.) -Lambert- "It's better to be looked over than overlooked."

Just wanted to get a straw-poll reaction to this. (Some of you may have already seen this, since Lara from Blue Skies Magazine ran a brief blurb about it.) A jumping buddy of mine was in Israel (he's from there) and ran into a gigantic billboard for a restaurant with my ugly mug on it. Thing is that I never gave the restaurant the pic, nor did the photographer (freefly badass Matt Hill). At first (and still somewhat), it was just kind of funny, but I'd be lying if I said it doesn't piss me off a tad that they took a pic of me and blasted it across a building without permission. Taking it even further, they've got me on their friggin' takeout bags, menus, their website, etc. (Yes, I realize that the photographer owns the image, and if anything, HE should be pissed off, but does that give them the right to use an image OF me commercially?) Please know that while a few of my best friends are lawyers, I absolutely hate how litigious our society has become. (I live in the U.S.) But, even with them in Israel and me back here, it seems like they surely violated SOME sort of law, no? Not trying to go on a witch hunt, but just wondering how much, if any, say the photographer and I have to what they do with a stolen image. As for a guess where they got the pic, I'm not sure. It has been run (with permission) in a U.S. mag before (for no compensation, just as a donation for an article on our DZ), and it has been on Facebook (albeit lower-res), so I'm not positive where they would have gotten a high-enough-res version to blow up to billboard size. I have heard that if someone alters an image a certain amount (like they did with the colors of my jumpsuit and by flipping the image) that perhaps what they did wasn't illegal. I haven't reached out to the restaurant yet because I'm not yet sure what my approach should be (i.e. Pissed off? Curious where they got the pic? etc.). Just curious what you all think. Thanks. (I will say there is sweet, strange irony in the fact that I'm a 23-year vegan, and they're using me to advertise a burger joint.) https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=427920933949165&set=pb.140187839389144.-2207520000.1391976863.&type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=436128469795078&set=pb.140187839389144.-2207520000.1391975643.&type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=396859883721937&set=pb.140187839389144.-2207520000.1391975646.&type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=425550057519586&set=pb.140187839389144.-2207520000.1391976863.&type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=295096553898271&set=pb.140187839389144.-2207520000.1391977371.&type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=386410808100178&set=pb.140187839389144.-2207520000.1391977332.&type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=378634782211114&set=pb.140187839389144.-2207520000.1391977332.&type=3&theater (Original image attached.) -Lambert- "It's better to be looked over than overlooked."

Where did you get that information? Unless things have changed unbeknownst to me, that is not true. While they may try and lean toward picking member over non-member pics, there's no ban on printing non-member pics that I know of. Fairly off topic, but thought I'd point that out. Just my $.02. -Lambert- "It's better to be looked over than overlooked."

Great read. You're still making Skydive Orange proud, even after all these years. :)

Afternoon, Spot. Glad to see you in here. I figured (and hoped) you might show up. :) I figure I had ruled out C by trying a second card (and since the issue occurs with on-board memory too). I'm assuming rather than trying to get B fixed, it's better just to try and pick up a replacement 150 on Ebay, no? I just hate buying shit from anywhere online other than reputable folks like B&H, but it does look like a place called BestTopTronics has a good reputation, so perhaps I'll go that route and buy an open-boxed one (unless you think sending it to a Sony repair center is a better route and won't end up costing near what a new(ish) one would cost). Thanks for weighing in. You da man. Edited to add: Oh, and I'm assuming all those possibilities you listed obviously only have to do with the 150 and the visible glitching (save the altitude comment you mentioned that I'm guessing applies to just the 110), right? So, if I read your response correctly, any guess what's up with the 110 and its buffering issues? -Lambert- "It's better to be looked over than overlooked."

I could probably make this into two threads, but maybe it will be my lucky day, and someone will know a fix for BOTH issues. I've had my Sony HDR CX-150 for three years. It has performed pretty much flawlessly until just a few days ago. I suddenly started noticing the occasional glitch (see screen shot as an example) in my video clips. They aren't there constantly, but they appear every few seconds. I tried reformatting the card (a Sony 16GB Mark2 PRO Duo), tried using another card and even tried on-board memory as well. Same effect each time. Just to rule things out, I switched to recording in SD mode (720x480), and there are no glitches. So, it's only there when recording in HD mode (and that includes any of the HD settings, such as HD FH, HD HQ, etc.). I figured it may have been a writing issue when dealing with so much info on the fly, but odd that it's doing it with on-board memory AND memory cards, I think. Thoughts? Maybe the camera is just shitting the bed, but I hope not. I can only really find used CX-150s out there, and you never know what you're going to get. (My box/helmet is a RAWA made for a 150, so I'd rather not have to buy something different if I can help it. Now, problem part two. A fellow jumper had a freebie CX-110 he got somewhere a while back that he didn't need and was kind enough to give to me. So, I've always had it on the shelf as a backup. I had tested it numerous times on the ground, and it seemed to work perfectly. So, when my 150 starting screwing up, I was able to easily fit the 110 in my box, and up I went. Well, the 110 shit itself in freefall and shut off a couple times (maybe why someone gave it to my friend for free, I suppose), recording very little video. I was able to recreate the issue on the ground and got "Memory Buffer Full" or some similar-sounding error. The little bit I could find on the internet suggested that the 110 may not be good for high altitudes, much vibration or both. Thoughts on that? Just sucks I had what I thought were two perfectly functioning cameras a couple days ago, and now I only seem to have half of one (meaning one that will only work well in SD). Sorry so long-winded. Just wanted to provide enough info for possible unfucking by the masses. Thanks for any help. -Lambert- "It's better to be looked over than overlooked."

It wasn't a slam on your product at all, or a slight against you or the help you were kind enough to give me in the past. I really do appreciate the help you gave me regarding P.A. In the past, I was simply on the fence about which way to go (since, as you could likely tell from our phone conversations, I knew very little about non-linear editing at the time), so I was shopping around and asking questions everywhere. What it came down to was simply that another video guy here, one who has been doing video at Orange even longer than I have (meaning before 1995) went with a trial version of Swoopware and liked it. Since I knew I'd have "in house" tech support since he had more familiarity with that software than I, he and I both bought full-blown, fully priced copies of Swoopware together. It was no more a slam on you or P.A., or a sign of unappreciation for your volunteered time, than it would be to buy a PC after discussing a Mac with a Mac person, or vice versa. Hope that clears things up. -Lambert- "It's better to be looked over than overlooked."

Oh, and to add: I assume everyone else who is using it here and likes it is also paid or incentivized? That would be news to them too. If you've got a beef with the developer or the software, that has absolutely zero to do with me, so please don't drag my character into it. Along the same lines: You enjoy flying certain gear, but if I became a believer in a story (that had nothing to do with you) that implied the manufacturer of your gear of choice was a piece of shit for some reason (whether the story was true or not), I wouldn't go publicly calling you one of their paid or incentivized lackies. Instead, I would focus my attention and energy on what it was I had a problem with in the first place. Fuckin'-A, I try and write a review about something that I thought others might find helpful. In typical D.Z.com fashion, even THAT gets fucked. -Lambert- "It's better to be looked over than overlooked."

@DSE: Huh????????????? Maybe there's some background I'm unaware of that led to your comments about it being a ripoff, but on a completely separate note, how in the hell did you come up with the fact that I'm "paid/incentivized" by them at all? In fact, I take that as a bit of a slam. While you and I may have never met in person, we've worked together here and there from afar, and we know a good number of the same folks, so I would guess you likely have a good guess as to my character. I take offense to the fact that you think I could be "bought" to sell something I didn't believe in. I bought the product, I think it works well for me and the other people using it here, and I figured I'd pass that on to anyone else looking for editing software. Nothing deeper than that. Sorry to dissappoint. I suppose if I had written a glowing review of my P.D. Pulse (which I've done before publicly), you'd tell people I was a paid spokesman for them too? (And, no, I have no sponsorship at all by P.D.) -Lambert- "It's better to be looked over than overlooked."

I'm kicking myself for just now getting around to this. I wanted to share my outstanding experience with Swoopware's TandemVids software. I've been using it for my tandem videos for about a year now (so, I've probably edited about 600 tandem videos with it), and I couldn't be happier. I mostly burn standard DVDs and pics (on the same disk, which saves money by only using one disk per customer), but I burn a good number of AVCHD (high-def videos) for tandem students I know, as well as experienced jumpers whom I film on fun jumps and AFF students in our program that I shoot inside video of. The software is very reasonably priced, not too hard to set up (though it does take a bit of time to fine-tune it exactly the way you want to put out videos that are truly “yours” and not just run-of-the-mill), and once you DO have it perfectly ready, it takes no time at all to spit out quality videos, without having to babysit the computer. I'd guess I spend roughly two to four minutes actually at my computer per video (two minutes when I'm in a hurry, and spending the extra time adding additional slow-mode sections that aren't already built into my templates when I'm not slammed for time), plus a couple extra minutes when pictures are part of what the customer buys (not a necessary step since the software auto-grabs the pics, but I like to delete any shots that aren't great). Then, after that, I leave my video room to do other things, and about five minutes later, everything is completely done. (Other guys at our DZ have faster render and burn times, but that's how long my system takes.) So, from start time to stop, it's between seven and nine minutes total for just video, and between nine and 11 minutes for video and stills. (Like I said, I could just have it burn ALL the pics I take and save myself a couple minutes per edit, but I hate sending students home with any “test shots” in the plane or any others I take that aren't high quality.) As computers get faster and cheaper, getting REALLY fast render and burn times gets more and more accessible, even on a budget. I don't pack for myself, and though it's a tad tight, I can do a back-to-back, edit two videos and pics for two different customers, interview my next two customers, and be on my way, all in 20 minutes if I have to. The software will auto-upload students' videos to YouTube if you like (and you can even have it use different, royalty-free music compared to what you give the student to take home, and it then auto-generates an e-mail with the YouTube link to send to the customer. Of our eight vidiots who typically work here, six of us are using it, and I've yet to hear anyone say he or she isn't completely happy with it. Our plan is to require ALL of our video staff to be able to upload to YouTube and/or offer AVCHD/Blu-ray by the beginning of next season, and while this software isn't the ONLY way to do so, it certainly seems like the perfect fit. I have no idea if the Mods will pull this since my post looks like I'm trying to run a free ad for this software, but I wish another videographer had told me how great it was a while back since it makes my life so much easier and puts out a much more professional-looking product than when I was doing linear edits before. Edited to add: I've had AMAZING customer support/tech help from the guy who created the software. Very responsive and helpful, and not at all annoyed by stupid-ass questions. -Lambert- "It's better to be looked over than overlooked."

A: Shit video, but if they're willing to pay for it, that's their decision. B: At least when the sidespin happens because the student is too busy de-arching, head tilted down and hands out so he can get a "great" exit shot, the GoPro will act as a black box to let investigators know what caused the sidespin in the first place. As I posted in a similar thread a bit back: "Two quick points: Take them for what they're worth. (To play fair, I've only got about 1,000 tandems under my belt, and I have since retired from doing tandems about a year and a half ago.) 1. To those who mentioned having the student wear a camera as an option: As a T.I., I personally would not want my student bringing along a camera. While it would probably USUALLY end up OK, the last thing I want is my student trying to be Steven-fucking-Spielberg when he or she should be arching and/or keeping their hands on their harness for exit, etc. I've done enough tandems and filmed more than enough of them to know they do stupid shit even when their only job is to arch and keep their hands in until tapped, etc. Do I want some aspiring Tarantino trying to catch a great shot on exit when he should be helping me prevent a sidespin? No thanks." -Lambert- "It's better to be looked over than overlooked."