PharmerPhil

If you have higher aspirations in video editing (and if you can afford it) one good thing about Final Cut Pro or Final Cut Express is that the work flow and tools are very similar to other high-end NLE programs. That is, once you learn it, the jump to things like AVID or Premiere is pretty simple. I don't think this is true of iMovie or other low-end programs (but I have never used iMovie, so I may be full of it). Of course, one thing nice about iMovie is that you don't have to buy it...

Firewire only. USB will not work. RTFM

I found some photos I took with various lenses and cameras, all from the same spot and pointed in close to the same dirction. I just posted them here: http://www.philroberson.com/lenscomparison/index.htm I shot these using a Sony TRV-38, a Sony HVR-A1U (like the HC-1), and a Canon 20D. The photo titles should tell you which camera/lens combo was used. The last images (12-16) are using the HVR-A1U in memory stick mode which yields images with different sizes and aspect ratios, but the video ones (photos 04-07) should give you an idea of what you wiil see while shooting video. Your mileage may vary.

It's better than not watching it at all (which I expect it more common), but I still think you should see it, and hear it, the way the customer will.

It's not a BH, but I have a piece from a SkySystems Vapor in front of me and it measures exactly 5/32-inches thick.

You know, I've been biting my tongue on this issue for a while, but I had to respond to this quote. Everytime I hear people say how little time it takes to produce NLE videos for tandems, I always wondered about this. There is no way it can take less time than the old analog method, unless you are willing to give your customer a video that YOU HAVE NEVER SEEN YOURSELF! I know, we do these videos a lot, and have a pretty good idea what the final product SHOULD look like. But I just can't get my head around handing over a finished product that I haven't reviewed start to finish in the same manner in which the customer will watch it.

That sounds about right. A 0.8x adapter give you a focal lenght wchi is 0.8x the existing lens it is put over. I don't really know the Pentax DSLRs. The last time I looked into these things, most consumer DSLRs had a crop factor of 1.5x. That is, an 18mm lens gave you the same field of view as a 27mm lens on a full-size (35mm) SLR. Canon's worked out to about 1.6x (When I looked into this, Canon was making their own sensors, and Nikon was using a Sony sensor, but I don't know about the other manufacturers). Again, the numbers on many W/A lens adapters just aren't accurate. (I worked in consumer electronics for many years, and this is just a case of specs being "measured" by the marketing dept.) Also, putting a step-up ring in between the camera and the lens changes the math by moving the lens adapter away from the stock lens and sensor. And another thing to remember is that video cameras have a different aspect ratio than most still cameas so they will NEVER be exactly the same field of view. i.e., my Canon shoots a 3:2 image, while video cameras are either 4:3 for SD or 16:9 for HD. Which brings me back to the last point in my previous post, I wouldn't get too concerned with the math for anything other than curiosity. Put a tripod up, roll some video tape with and without the lens adapters in question, put your still camera on the tripod and do the same, and then compare the results. One great thing about digital is immediate feedback. Pick what works for you. (If you do this at a DZ, you may be able to borrow lots of other lens adapters to compare.) I actually did this not too long ago and output a contact sheet of the results somewhere. I'll see if I can dig it out and send it to you.

Well,...not exactly. You cannot look at focal length alone without looking at the size of the image sensor. The common thought that a 50mm focal length equals "normal sight" is based on 35mm film (or an image sensor with similar dimensions, 24mm x 35mm). For a larger format camera, a longer focal length would be considered "normal." For a smaller format, a shorter focal length would be considered "normal." When it comes to small consumer camcorders, (or even larger pro camcorders) the image sensor is much, much smaller than 35mm. Typically at least a third smaller or more.Therefore, a lens with an equally smaller focal length would be considered "normal." Most camcorders have their focal length range written right on the front of their lenses, often a number like 5.1-51mm with 5mm being the wide end of the range. But they don't say what size the sensor is. To do the math (which I haven't) you would need to know the size of your imager, the focal length of your lens (presumably at it's widest setting because most camcorders have an optical zoom), and know the real multiplier for the wide-angle lens adapter. Searching previous threads will show that the simple multipliers (0.5x, o.45x, etc.) are misleading. Aditionally, using a filter thread adapter (i.e. 37mm-30mm) changes the wide-angle conversion of the lens adapter. Never bothered to do the math because anequedotal evidence tends to be easier to work with (for me). Would love it if someone with time and inclination would post real formulas (including what effect those filter adapters have). But it probably wouldn't change my current choices in lenses and lens adapters. ...my too sense... Phil Roberson

It depends on lots of missing data, some alreay pointed out. I like to have my still camera slightly wider than my video. An occasional limb, or instructor's head out of frame isn't bad for video, but can look odd in a print that you stare at for a while. Also, going slightly wider gives you more room to crop for different sizes (example, any time you make an 8x10, you have to crop). A big issue is how close you like to fly to your subject. I fly fairly close to tandems, so I use a 24mm Canon (

Went to the first one yesterday in Waltham, MA. I found it very valuable. They concentrated on color management and photo workflow using Apple's Aperture and Automator programs, (plus some Photoshop and HP Printer info). They hinted at other items of help in the upcoming Mac OS release this Friday, but they couldn't get into details on that yet (would love to here what they say when it is official). The seminar is probably only mildly helpful if you are using another OS, but very good seminar if you are are using Mac and are shooting or migrating to raw image files.

I've used Stroboframes for several years now, and never had a problem. (I even bought a couple of used ones from B&H). I know I got additional plates from B&H as well. I'll bet they still carry them. Instead of noticing play in them I have noticed they seem to stick after a while, making them hard too release. But they are still managable. My home DZ uses film for tandems, so I am constantly swapping out my film and digital SLRs. I like the Strobos because they are relatively low profile, and have a very small footprint. Just my too sense...

Fisheye IS a form of distortion. Plain and simple. But all lenses introduce distortion. They wider the lens, the more you are trying to take a flat picture of a curved subject (i.e. part of a sphere). Something has to give, and it gives in the form of distortion. So called Ayspherical (sp?) lenses distort along the diagonals so it is often* not noticable (horizons and walls are straight, and items on the edges look more in scale). Fisheye lenses (which are easier/cheaper to make) distort in a way that makes straight lines not so straight (unless they are in the very middle of a horizontal or vertical axis). IMHO, a little fisheye isn't too bad if you are looking up or down down on skydivers like in many RW jumps. But I find it pretty obnoxious when it is extreme or if a horizontal element is introduced. It's kinda like turning your reverb up to ten on every song. *However, if you ever take an ayspherical lens and look at something round that is positioned in one of the corners, you can quickly see that the object is distorted along the diagonal lines. This is particulalry noticable on people's heads, where it looks like they have an abnormal growth in the direction of the outside corner of the image.

Wow. I usually gag when I see the prints these places charge for. What the hell sort of Wal-whatevers do you have in YOUR area? P.S. Lazlo, you are way too cheap. Your photos are worth more, and people WILL pay more.

If you wanna burn HD videos, you need a Blue-ray or HDVD burner (and burning software, iMovie does HD, but iDVD doesn't do HD...yet). Standard DVDs are only good for...standard def DVDs. Not HD.

I used to use a Sony multi-element lens (VCL-SW04, 0.45X) that exhibited the same inside circle fogging problem you describe. It didn't happen all the time, but definitely was more pronounced when I jumped in Fla. I switched to the Raynox 5050 lens you have, and I haven't had the problem once (even in Fla). I have never used cat crap. One possibility is that you put the w/a lens on the camera on a high-humidity day, thus trappping the moisture between the w/a lens and the stock camera lens. Or maybe there is moisture inside the elements. (I think they are supposed to be assembled with dry gases, but you may have gotten a bad unit) Personally, I need a multi-element lens so that I can zoom in on things when doing tandem videos, so the single element lens adapters aren't an option for me. BTW, you mention that the conditions on the rear of your UV filter were the same as on the front of the 10-22 lens. This may not be true. Moisture in the air condenses as it cools on colder surfaces (beer bottles for instance). Good chance that when in freefall, your front element cools down quite quickly, while the front of the 10-22 lens retains it's temperature for a longer time. Just food for thought.

I know this is supposed to be true, but my own experience has shown me otherwise. It may be the batteries I use (Sony NP-QM71D, I think they may have some sort of logic in them, but I am not sure). Anyway, I always leave my helmet plugged in while on the ground at my home DZ. That can mean for weeks at a time when we have weather days. I never drain them completely (intentionally or otherwise), and never have dead batteries when I want to jump. The closest I come to draining them is when I go to a boogie or event at another drop zone. At those times, I can use my helmet for days on end without having to re-charge. If it is longer than a weekend event, I try to plug my helmet in overnight every night, but can't always do that. For what it it's worth, I've never had a problem with my two batteries that I treat like this. I bought them new in June 2003 for my TRV-38 and now use them on that and my A1U. I know it is only anecdotal, but it has worked so far...

I agree on the "fisheye" issue (kinda like using too much reverb on all your music). But there are many instances where it isn't objectionable. Shooting down on an RW jump really doesn't reveal the fisheye distortion much. It is much different when shooting things with a horizon (like tandems). But even then, the crop factor of many DSLRs reduces the distortion alot. And yeah, if you jump a side mount, many times there isn't a problem with the video "seeing" the SLR lens. But it can be a big problem with many top-mounts.

I think what the skydiveguy was referring to was the crooked horizon; not the left-right shift. People are used to seeing horizons as horizontal (Gee, wonder if that's where the name came from...). A tilted horizon is a punishable offense at my home DZ.

Personnaly I use the Canon 15mm fixed for lots of shots. It is lighter than all the lenses you listed (11.7oz.), and smaller is definitely an issue if you have to share space with a video camera. The Canon 15mm is lighter and smaller (in both diameter and length) than the Sigma 15mm lens. Of course the Canon 18-55mm is even lighter still (though slightly larger). And while I have never jumped one, I used to use one on the ground a fair amount, and lots of jumpers are happy with it.

Or, you can just buy an etch-a-sketch real cheap on e-bay, and simply compose your after-jump impressions of the dive on the screen by hand. They're easy to re-boot too. You just hold it over your head and shake it. High-def is way over-rated.

It's just too easy to be cynical with thread. But I'm glad you "forgot" about the camera rather than "forgot" about something more important (like tracking/pulling/whatever). If you've read this forum much, you probably saw this coming, but this is a great example of why there are recommendations for higher jump numbers before "focusing" on a camera.

One thing the DZ should be thinking about (IMHO) is "what does this add to the tandem student's experience?" Other than increased risk. The student is paying for the jump, and everything should be focused on what they get for their dollar. I would argue strongly that jumping out of a plane, experiencing freefall, and seeing the world from that perspective is enough for any first time jumper. Adding someone else in freefall (other than a camera person) just adds confusion and danger. Especially if it is someone they don't even know, and who isn't providing a service (like a video of their skydive). Why would anyone think that having the student focus on some 70-jump wonder packer who they don't even know, somehow makes the skydive more "cool?" Most times, people want to lurk simply for their own benefit, at the expense of, and risk to, the student who is paying the bill. Sorry for rambling, but this issue is a pet peeve of mine.

Yep. that is vignetting. I use a Raynox 5050 too and noticed the same thing when I had a UV filter on. It was small, and you wouldn't see it on most CRT TVs, but it was there. In reality, the lens is less than $100, so I am not that concerned with lens protection offered by a UV filter anyway. But this problem can also show up with other things on the helmet. If I move my video camera forward till you can just get my still camera out of the frame on the ground, you will see the still camera when IS kicks in. Because of this, you have to maintain a little more clearance from other things (still camera, flash, leading edge of helmet) to keep the image safe.

I hope it goes without saying that it is always up to the Tandem intructor whether or not someone comes along (and hopefully the videographer as well). The times we do allow a lurker, it is always a joint decision by the Instructor and videographer. In your case, I think you could simply tell the 70-jump wonder that he doesn't have the experience/skills/license/whatever. For us it has been more difficult politically to say that to someone with thousands of jumps (who may still not have the skills) and is a regular customer. I also hope no one "practices" camera flying with students. In this case we have one small advantage in Massachusetts which is the requirement that anyone jumping with a student have a waiver from the Massachusetts Aeronautical Commission (whooppee, our own little state FAA). Truth be told, there are very easy to get (and free), but it does take some forethought and weeks of waiting, which rules out a last minute request to lurk.

I guess that's the point. Most Mac users know their systems work better. While PC-ers (at best) try to claim that their's are "just as good." My money is on the one that is better...