PharmerPhil

Personally, I LOVE tape. If nothing else than for for archive purposes. I don't have to do anything to have a fairly long-term archive of whatever I shoot. And I have had regular reasons to go back and retrieve footage I have shot. I have tapes that are HDV, DV, DVCAM, Hi-8, and VHS,...all of which I can throw on a machine I own (and that works) and get footage out of in no time. And none of which I have had to do anything with for archive purposes other than store them half way decently (sitting on a shelf somewhere). Hell, I have audio cassettes, DATs, and even reel-to-reel tapes (70's) that I have been able to retrieve footage from (all fairly recently) without much hassle. Then again, I have hard drives less than a decade old that I would have to search for a way to even hook them up (SCSI), and on which are files that I don't even know if I have software on my computers to read anymore. Give me tape, cheap and hassle free.

A couple points to consider: If you are real serious about your photo editing, you will need to color calibrate your monitor so that WYSIWYG. I don't know if you can get that level of color calibration out of consumer TVs these days or not. I wouldn't go Plasma for a computer monitor. Your static computer images such as toolbars, dock, etc. will burn into the screen, and you'll see them even when watching TV. Most better TVs have resolution comparable to better computer monitors. However, if you are too close to the monitor, this may be too much of a good thing. You want to make sure you are far back enough that you don't see individual pixels. There are a whole bunch of formulas for the optimal distance (it depends on TV size, HD vs. SD, and how good your eyes are...). Google "TV viewing distance" or something like that. When I hook up my computer to one of my LCD TVs (20" next to my computer monitors or a 40" in the living room), I just use a DVI-to-HDMI cable. They're cheap. You don't get audio over DVI, but you're not really gonna watch movies on a big, beautiful screen using cheap built-in speakers...are you? Instead hook-up a digital audio out from your computer to a decent receiver and speakers. And before you think about it, most TVs won't output 5.1 audio to a receiver from a HDMI input source (they just output stereo instead). Something about Dolby licensing not allowing it to be passed through. Make sure your video card supports the exact, native resolution of your TV (or vice versa) or you will end up having to jump through hoops to get them to talk nicely. I am guessing most modern cards will do 1920x1080 so that's a good TV pixel size to shoot for. Have fun!

W/A lens adapters with the same multiplier SHOULD give you the same field fo view on the same camera (and a 20mm lens should and usually will give you the same field of view given the same sized imaging device, but as stated, Canon and Nikon use different sized sensors). However, specs on most consumer electronics are published, and often determined, by the company's marketing departments, not their engineering departments. Bigger brand names like Canon and Nikon often have a vested interest in making their specs believable on their better products, but the same can't be said for many smaller companies. The short story is that you can't really trust the 0.45x type numbers on most lens adapters. That being said, all of these lenses, and particularly your cheaper lenses, have what I feel is unacceptable vignetting on the images you posted. I'd keep searching.

I have occasionally noticed this problem, and am fairly sure it is between the lens and camera. Try opening it up and then reassembling it on a very dry day (or in a dry room). BTW, I have always used the 37-37mm ring. I just figured, Why would they include it if they didn't want it used? And, I theorized that they wanted to maintain a given distance between the lenses regardless of whether you need to step up or not (it will change the image if you change this distance). Dunno whether this is true or not.

But what quality stills? Don't be spec'd into thinking that stills from a video camera with a miniscule sensor and marginal lens will give you images any where near the quality of a dedicated still camera image. Sensor pixels (and megapixels) are just a very small part of the image quality equation.

This is from a previously uninvolved reader of this thread: Dude, give it a rest. You chimed in with a product opinion backed with zero experience. When others (with experience) piped in with contrary views, you,...well... you just started whining. It's okay if you don't agree with the others (a democracy means having the right to be wrong), but don't feel you have to post longer and longer replies just so you can get in the last word. And BTW, if your profile is accurate you shouldn't even be thinking about flying a camera at this stage. Really. REALLY. No need to reply. I know already that you don't agree with my post either.

Pillar-boxing is a term for the vertical black bars that are added to the sides of a video to take up space when a video is narrower than the screen it is viewed on. Like when non-wide screen videos are viewed on a wide screen (Letter-boxing, which is more commonly seen, is when there are black bars on the top and bottom. Like when a wide-screen video is viewed on a traditional, non-wide screen TV.) As far as your video, it wasn't just at the end, but (as I remember) the whole video was slightly squeezed. For example, that was a mighty narrow Otter at the beginning of the video. It looks like you outputted the video to a different size, and didn't keep the same aspect ratio. Look for a term like "constrain proportions," or "constrain aspect ratio," something like that. As far as I know, youtube gives you a 4:3 screen size, which means non-widescreen footage should fill the screen. If you are outputting widescreen, you should get letter-boxing.

What's with all the gaudy transitions? (Just cause you CAN do a given transition, doesn't mean you should.) And what's with the squeezed frame and pillar-boxing? Sorry, it's late, but those are my two cents.

That's one reason I went to an HC-5 this year from an A1U.

I had to do that a few years ago on a Mac. I forget what I used, but I found it quickly on the web doing a simple search. As I recall, there were lots of hacks out there that would do the job. Apple deliberately made it somewhat difficult so the iPod didn't become a sneaker-net version of Napster.

I just did that today when re-locating a camera. I just use a machine screw from below. It is either an 8-32 or 6-32, I forget (I'm pretty sure 8-32). Just see which one fits snugly in the locating hole in the camera. Then tap threads in your top-plate, and thread the screw in from underneath. Works great.

I can almost hear the gears turning in the wing suit flyers' oxygen deprived brains...

??? I thought I was just supposed to buy new cameras every year???

I use my zoom all the time when videoing tandems (landings, ground shots, in plane), and won't live without it. But I never use it in freefall (and don't recommend it), so if that's all you want the camera for, go for it. It's a great camera.

Overall this is a good description of Sunny 16. However, in this case I would disagree with stopping it down because of snow (i.e. "f/22 - beach or snow"). This applies when you are on the beach or in the snow because there is so much close reflected light on your subject. But in this case, you are looking down on your subject with the sun shining on them. There isn't really any light other than the sun shining directly on them, and in this case, the Sunny 16 rule as is would yield better results (I believe). Stopping it down will make the subject darker (what he complained about in the first place), and would make the snow grayer.

Yes.

Point the camera backwards...

Thanks. I'll try that. Does this make any difference as to the amount of air pressure you need to fire a shot?

Yes, this is auto exposure compensation (AES). But it does not automatically happen. You have to set it. AES basically adjusts the auto exposure parameters to over- or under-expose your image by a set amount. Shutter priority won't set it on its own. You do have to set it yourself (otherwise it is "0"). I don't know what camera you are using, but there should be a setting for AES. The icon for this on Canons at least is a "+/-" symbol. Once set, your exposure graph in the LCD will show how much compensation is dialed in. Your owner's manual should show you how to set it on your camera. Basically, when dragon2 is referring to +1.0, he is setting his AES to over-expose by 1 full stop (to compensate for all the white in the image). Which should work okay depending on how much of your image is composed of the white stuff. But again, once set, this will affect all shots you take whether there is snow in the image or not. I highly recommend playing with it on the ground (before all the snow melts).

You just got me thinking of a shot I took recently (attached). Look at how many different shades of white are in this image. This would have been almost impossible using auto-exposure, or all the snow would have looked ghastly gray. But this is one image, not a composite. There are some blown out whites in the foreground, but you can still differentiate the white on the hive where the sun hits it, the hive on the shaded side, the hive with the direct shadow from the sprig, the white trim on the barn, and you can still see details in the snow on the ground and on the roof behind.

I think you identified your own problem. My guess is the snow looked gray instead of white, right?. It is not really the glare though, but the fact that the snow is so light that the camera tries to auto-expose for a darker image. The fact that your exit shots were good, tells me you probably had good settings to start. But anytime you shoot something that is unusually light, or unusually dark, you have to dial in some compensation so the camera doesn't under- or over-expose. You could use auto-exposure compensation, but then you are likely to have over-exposed exits. Check your settings for the exit shots. If you dial them in as manual settings, it will probably work fine over the snow too. Or google "sunny 16" and use those settings. Snow shots are tough. Practice on the ground while you can. FWIW, whenever I shoot snow shots on the ground (if I have the time) I always bracket my shots to get just the right gradations in the snow.

??? Really? I never have a problem with that. I can either use the tube with the helmet off, or just push the shutter button. Maybe it is how you have it wired?

Still switch? In my experience, everyone recommends what they have always used. I use a blow switch and like it, so here's my take. Pros: I see and hear from camera fliers all the time who are replacing their broken tongue or bite switches. I have a blow switch that I have had for many, many (many?) years, and it has never failed. I like the action. I don't have to move my teeth or tongue to take a pic. Cons: I don't know the Optic, but with a blow switch you do need a place to put the actual switch mechanism--it is bulky. Also, use the black tube that comes with the switch, otherwise you will be grossed out pretty quickly (or others will) with all the crap that accumulates in the tube. Run bleach through the tube every so often.

I'll let others reply to the bulk of your question (or you can do a search, there is a recent thread with the pros/cons of the Tony Suits wing types). Which wing type is subject to how you fly, what your body-type is, and personal preference. If you get an opinion on wings, make sure you get it qualified with the persons weight and how he/she flies. However, as far as booties go, here's my take. They're great for attacking an exit, particularly on tailgate aircraft. But that's about all. HOWEVER, if you will be filming on level (i.e. tandems) on your belly, I think booties are a liability. The drag on your legs makes it hard to get a little under the tandem and look up at them (so you don't get just the forehead shot and the Instructor's face). I feel the same way about ff pants that have a lot of material on the legs. FWIW, I have a two-piece Tony suit with cargo pants, swoop shorts, and bootie pants. I never use the bootie pants for tandems, and actually rarely use them for any video work (they are pretty much relegated to AFF use now). Opinions expressed are those of the poster. Actual conditions may vary, and your results may differ...

I use a uni-bit. It is cheaper, and does a better job than larger bits on plastic, fiberglass, etc.