PharmerPhil

Handbrake baby!

Quote

One question though, aren`t the guy on pic 3 too far from the subject?
Since I began back/sit flying i almost never use it for tandems freefall except for exit/opening. Even if I`m at leg distance from passenger the person seems too far in frame (on 0.5ish range wide adapter). Or is it just me?

I was gonna say something earlier and bit my tongue. But now it's healed. I totally agree and think all of them are too far from the subject. I get a little annoyed at videots (here the term is apropos) who like putting themselves or their feet in the video at the expense of the paying customer. I see too much "creative" flying (and self-absorbed ground narrative) that detracts, not adds to the end product. It is all about the customer, a little about the TI and not at all about the videographer.

Sure I'll catch a ration for saying this, but that's how I feel.

Quote

What settings do you change on a cloudy day vs a sunny day?

I am constantly changing the Auto Exposure Compensation on my HC-5 or A1U throughout the day and depending on sky conditions (I put it on the first page of my custom menus, along with spot focus, and auto/manual focus).

On a sunny summer day at noon, or (even worse) almost anytime underneath an overcast or very hazy sky, I often have to boost the AES by up to 3-4 points to get a decently exposed face when looking up at a tandem pair. Particularly on dark skinned jumpers. On RW (looking down), early/late in the day, or when there are clouds underneath the tandem, I don't need any compensation. In between these conditions it varies.

I would simply use an original Hypeye, or Hypeye Mini. These plug in to the Lanc port on the HC-5 rather than the A/V port, and don't stick out at all.

Well you have the jump numbers to consider starting to add a camera. But adding a camera for the first time on a unique skydive kinda violates the "only-one-new-thing-at-a-time" rule. I would strongly advise using the camera (a lot) on jumps you are already familiar with first. Too many new distractions for one jump IMHO...

Quote

...I'm betting that for every story that comes in, there are three that don't.

I'm betting way more than that...

Funny how you missed the most important risk...

This is one of the few things I use the Safari browser for. If you load a page with the video file (for example a youtube page containing a video), then while it is loading click on "Activity" under the "Window" pull-down menu (or command-shift-A) it will bring up the activity window. Scroll down until you see the .flv file that is loading or loaded. Usually one of the biggest files. Double click on that file to download it.

+1

Brilliant! Glad I was able to read your post before the moderators take it down. Now you're gonna get a finger-wagging from them. But I'll bet it was worth it...

Okay, I don't own one yet so I didn't speak up. But if you really want an answer,...

If it were me, I would simply use USB to transfer. Seems simpler than taking the camera off, or doing mods. HEll, I don't even like using quick releases or boxes on my helmet--just a screw works fine. I know these are consumer cams and 99 percent of the world will never use a tripod (much less a helmet), but I really hate it when manufacturers do stuff like this (like the Sony DV/HDV cams that had bottom loading tapes). I still use an HVR-A1U as a second camera for event videos, and it is a real hassle to change tapes in the middle. Done venting, but I feel your pain...

I used to jump an HC1 (A1U, same thing). Nice camera but it is huge by today's standards. If you want something cheap that you already own, use the HC3. It is way smaller and lighter and 95 percent of the same camera. The other thing is the HC-1 loads tapes from the bottom. So if you have it top-mounted (recommended) and you have no firewire, the only way to get digital video off of it will be to unbolt it. HC3 has side-loading tapes, and you can plug in firewire and power supply while it is still top-mounted on the helmet. My HC5 (similar) never comes off my helmet during a typical weekend or week of jumping.

Ditto to everything Dragon said (including starting with video only), and fill in your profile so we can either respect you or berate you.

Don't go by the scale. Instead, put yourself and your camera a distance away from something on the ground that is the same distance you typically fly to your subject in freefall. Put the camera in auto focus, and when it focuses on the person/object at that distance, put it in manual focus to lock it in.

I don't know if the CX series has it, but many Sony cameras have a "spot focus" setting. On my HC-5, right before I exit I zoom in on something in the plane that is about 5 feet away, hit spot focus, then zoom out and I'm ready for freefall (I use auto focus for everything except freefall). This zooming in thing may not work on single element lens, but you can do the same thing sans zooming.

Quote

...forget about usb.

I think more emphasis needed on this point. These tape based camcorders will not send video through the USB port regardless of what program you are using.

Plus, it looks like you are in the UK. I seem to remember an issue with EU camcorders not streaming video through firewire ports either. Something about EU (CE) approval?

Quote

...for canon but also works with most modern digital cameras apparently...

No, actually it doesn't work for most cameras. And if your camera doesn't have a remote shutter port, it won't work for yours either. (You'll notice on your link the last step says "plug in your camera and have fun." Won't be much fun when you discover at that point that there is no where to plug this in to on your camera). You will undoubtedly have to carefully rip apart your camera and do some very fine soldering inside it's guts (at the very least).

You are relatively new to skydiving, and hopefully new to camera flying. And while skydiving tends to attract people who don't follow the norms and want to try things their own way, sometimes things are always usually done a certain way for good reason. Taking a camera that isn't inherently suited for skydiving, jury-rigging it to a helmet that isn't designed for, or particularly good for camera flying, and expecting good, safe results is,...well,... let's just say bold. If you were at my DZ, I would try to talk you into using more suitable equipment that has proven it will work for freefall photogrphy. In the end, you will be better served.

Just my too sense...

Blue Skies Burt...

I have rings sewn on to the front of my leg straps and use a metal clip (same as RSL, forget what it's called) on the bottom of the wing to attach the wings to the rig. The advantage is that the attachment point is in the exact same place each time. The disadvantage is it is harder to use if you have to borrow a rig. You can clip it to the length adjuster for the the leg strap on another rig, but it is harder to release and I wouldn't do that a lot as it can prematurely wear the leg strap.

I've used Smoothcam before with good success for some non-skydiving stuff. It works well, but is extremely time-consuming to analyze and render.

However, your original footage seemed particularly shaky so I am curious what you shot it with. What camera? What lens? It looks like non IS stabilized footage (and possibly a longer lens). I personally use EIS all the time for freefall footage and love it. I can't imagine using Smoothcam for most skydiving work due to the render time required.

Quote

Is there really a difference between the lenses...

Yes. And you can measure the actual resolution of a lens fairly easily too. There are charts made for this purpose with lines of varying thickness, funny looking pinwheels, etc. You shoot a chart with the given camera/lens, and you can see whether certain lines are distinguishable or not. You can also see it with your naked eyes if you have maintained a high quality signal through out the process (i.e., lens, camera, delivery format, etc.) and are viewing on an HD TV/monitor.

Sure, there is also a heavy dose of marketing hype in the naming and advertising of these lenses, but trust me, a $25 "High Definition" lens on e-bay will look like crap. Try to think of the whole equipment chain from recording delivering and playing back videos. If all you do is dub to VHS or DVD using a composite cable and watch on a 20-year old, 19-inch tube TV that the DZ has hanging around, then no. You won't be able to tell (but why are you buying an HD cam in the first place). However if you want to record HD images that look as good as they can on an HD set, you need to have a lens that is up to the task.

Quote

is it really needed...can you use your lens that you've been using on your SD camera on an HD?

That depends on what sort of quality you are looking for. But again, if you are happy with standard resolution videos (or worse with many of these lenses), then don't bother upgrading. Use your old PC9/Kenko combination, and it will look just as good as skydiving vids from 12 years ago. But if you want to upgrade your video quality, your goal should be to improve on, or eliminate, the weakest link in the chain. In many cases, this will be that "hunk of glass" you put in front of your nice new shiny HD camcorder. (btw, even the better "HD" lens adapters usually aren't as good as the camcorder w/o said adapter, but we need wide-angle capability for many skydiving shots, so we use them anyway.)

Hey, maybe you have an old VHS tape of your first skydive sitting around somewhere. Can you watch it on your 46-inch HD TV? Sure. But is it HD? No.

Quote

I thought a lens was a hunk glass.... what makes a HD Lens an HD lens?

A coke bottle is a "hunk of glass" too (or at least they used to be). But you wouldn't want to look through one. Nothing transmits light perfectly. Particularly lenses that are designed to bend the light rays in the first place (as opposed to a perfectly flat picture window). How sharp and clear the image is after it goes through a given lens depends on how well that lens is both engineered and manufactured. And any time you add more glass elements in front of a lens (remember, the video camera already has a lens, what we are talking about here are actually lens adapters), the more chances you have to screw up that image.

Quote

3 of my friends have converted cameyes to work with their CX105's/CX7. They say its a bit of a fiddly job but if you know what you're doing electronically its doable.

Not just electronically, but mechanically as well. There is no mini jack on the CX100 that a Cameye will even plug into. At the very least you would have to get an A/V plug for the CX100 ($) before doing anything electronically. I can't imagine it being worth the time or effort when the Hypeye D is available.

The third option is that there is moisture behind the lens inside the camera body. I always try to change lenses when it is dry out, or in an air-conditioned room.

If the moisture is on the front of the lens there is something you can do to minimize it. Water condenses on cold surfaces (think a cold bottle of beer on a hot day,...). So keeping your lens as warm as possible helps a lot. Depending on how your camera is mounted, try sitting with the lens of your SLR in your crotch, or keep a warm hand over it on the ride to altitude. Avoid just sitting it next to you near the door of an Otter where it will get very cold.

Quote

... At the end of his assignment, the photographer threw all the randomly snapped pictures that weren't part of what he was contracted to photograph into the bin for anyone to take.

I know when I am hired by a newspaper for an assignment, my contract specifies that they own all the photos I take during that shoot (whether they use them or not). If the photographer was hired by someone else, good chance they own the copyright on the picture in question, not the photographer. At any rate, it certainly isn't owned by your friend.

Also, your friend saying "no problem" isn't a good enough safeguard for commercial work. Whoever wants to use the photo needs to get permission from the copyright holder, and a signed release from the person in the photo if he or she is recognizable.

If it is just for one commercial, why build a box at all? Just bolt the cameras to the mount. They should do fine. A year ago or so we bolted a big Panasonic HD camera (HX-200?) to the strut of an Otter for "just one load." Got real busy all of a sudden and the plane ended up turning for about 6-8 loads before we could take the camera off. It did fine. I routinely put 500 or more jumps on any given camera on my helmet without a box, and never had a camera problem.

Quote

we the sub contractors set OUR rates

You can set the rates all you want. But if the customer (the DZ) doesn't give you the job, your rate just went to $0. Like a sub at a construction site, you are free to quote a very high rate,... but you probably won't get the job.

BTW, we still shoot film at my home DZ, but I know DZs where the pay to the camera flier went up a little when they went to digital stills. Sounds fair to me. It digital definitely costs more and takes more time. But only if your customer (i.e., the DZ) agrees, and taking an adversarial tone with your customer probably won't help your cause.

I am curious about your breakdown of your fee. Are you saying that you are getting $75 pay for video and stills? And what does the DZ get for their effort/work/risk?