DSE

at the risk of derailing the thread even further, the reason people get sick watching your video isn't because it's "so good," but because the shutter speed is so high that the contrasts and colors are surreal and impossible for the brain to decode well. Yes, there are streamlined cameras that aren't nearly as snag-related as the GoPro. To Sandy's point and perhaps a bit of summation; RSL's are highly recommended for anyone not hanging large camera systems on their heads. Those that wear large camera systems on their heads are likely highly experienced and have a good idea of when they should/shouldn't disconnect an RSL. RSL's have very few caveats, and have saved a great many lives. It's recommended that the 'average' skydiver use one for safety.

Shift over to Paralog. Mac supported. Nice to have mobile access too.

If your heart is set on a 7 cell then take a good look at the PD Storm. Personally I would recommend a Sabre 2 or Pulse - both 9 cells. Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be. . I don't think I'd recommend the Storm as a beginner canopy. Spectre? Sure. Storm...not so fast. It's aggressive. I'm a fan of the Sabre 2, Pulse, and Sihouette. Silhouettes share some similarities to the Navigator, pack ridiculously easily, and can be sporty or docile. I jumped Silhouettes for several years before going to a Sabre2, then to the Storm. I mostly jump Storms and Pulses now (our wingsuit school offers both in the student rigs).

that said, the Samsung chipset does everything the A9 does, and then some.

I see your point, and disagree with it. As someone who makes their living _entirely_ through copyrighted works, there is no quarter on my end when dealing with professionals who know what they're doing, and mindfully proceed anyway. At the same time, I appreciate you clarifying your perspective.

your words The "client" was also a photographer, one doing a skydive. He knows who owns what. He submitted it in his name, suggesting he took the photo. He didn't claim "I took this photo of someone else" nor did he say "I'm in this photo taken by someone else." The intimation both through the sort of site this is, the rules of the contest, and the audience it draws, is that the guy took this somewhat unusual photo himself. I don't think that makes Lazlo a bad guy. Me? I like feeling that skydivers will have my back when my material is stolen (and on more than one occasion, i've learned of my content being used without my permission, from skydiving friends). Out of curiosity, did you actually read what Lazlo posted on the Geo site before they removed the photo? I didn't find it offensive, so I'd like to better understand which specific words of his post on that site offended or upset you. I'm not sure there is any nice way to say "you stole this." And even if there were, why would one want to be nice to a thief?

Over time, sunlight also weakens the clip arms. I'm aware of one GoPro that ended up on a car hood after having been on an aircraft every day for several weeks.

As pointed out, you seem to be overly bent out of shape here. -The person submitted a photo as if they took it (a violation of the contest rules) -It is a very unusual shot. -Once it was pointed out that the shot violated the site/contest rules, it was removed (whether by the site, or by the submitting person, we don't know). A full-time, professional photographer (both aerial and commercial) points out to the submittee that his submission is theft of someone else' work. It's challenging for me to understand why you'd take offense at that. Trophy or not, it's theft. It doesn't matter what the end benefit is or isn't to either party, it's a misrepresentation of artistic asethetic and copyright ownership. At what point does theft matter (or not?)

Given that the original photo/posting is gone, you may have missed that the person posting the original photo is also a professional photographer. No, he did not claim he took the photo, nor did he express he didn't. Given that he's a professional, it would be reasonable to assume the original poster on the natl' geo site knows the ropes of copyright. The shot you've linked to isn't at all relevant to the original shot, now removed by National Geographic or their site hosts.

This explains it well and explains why pens don't float in elevators (the link you used specifically says a pen will float, when most any 10 year old will tell you this is not so). This article specifically references freefall. HTH.

I don't like this video, it seems suspect to me. A GoPro is going to break at the mount. I know a lot of low time belly fliers who've already had to replace GoPro's knocked off their heads in freefall due to simply bumping each other. If you find the video suspect (I don't), why not borrow a pull-test scale from a rigger, gather up a few mounts, and see what you can come up with. You can also see my Vimeo channel where there are two bridle entanglements during wingsuit rodeos. In neither case did the camera break off at the mount. If there are "a lot of people that have had theirs knocked off in freefall", how is it that we're not hearing about those people from anyone? Helmet surfaces vary. Mounting skills vary. Air temperature may play a role. VRB that isn't mounted correctly can give way. VRB that is mounted correctly won't give much at all. Are you prepared to gamble on the variables?

Hours? No. Minutes? yes. It's quite easy to copy the IRM at this point in time. Here's a guide; A-Unthread binder (30 seconds or so) B-Insert relevant sections into the feeder tray C-Select "copy both sides" on copy machine D-Walk away, return 5 mins later and rebind/staple/insert into folder. I'm not suggesting that the print version be ENTIRELY replaced just yet. In a few years..sure. Both are great. I'm a fan of being able to print sections of the IRM, I do it with the SIM for most of my Coach Candidates, simply because they frequently/usually show up with an e-version of the SIM. "Need" to be changing? Probably nothing/not much. However, with new information access, videos, and other media-rich opportunity, it would be a weak argument that slipping the new/updated information at more frequent points would be a bad thing. I believe this is a part of the resistance, yes. However, I also feel it's a fear of the future, fear of losing control, and a lack of understanding. I'd be surprised if the cost of printing the IRM is remotely covered in the cost of the book. And it shouldn't be making "more money" but rather "breaking even." This page supports that some at USPA recognize the value in e-distribution. http://www.uspa.org/Portals/0/Downloads/Man_IRMEssentials.pdf It also is a board decision, not just an admin decision. Even if the powers that layout/admin the manual wanted to go e-version, they can't do so without board input. However, the board vote heavily relies on input from the admins of the IRM. I've been present for those arguments, and explained that printing, sharing, etc can be tracked/limited. For example, the book security can be set for only sectional printing, a limited number of prints, or no printing. My wingsuit E-book allows all the formations to be printed, but the coaching/organizing sections cannot be. http://www.amazon.ca/Wingsuit-Formations-Douglas-Spotted-Eagle-ebook/dp/B00BNHQ9U4

Cost of designing/manufacturing a helmet that locks the user into a single camera when there are so many choices comes to mind? It's one thing to print/rapid proto a small part that might be snag resistant, and quite another to develop molds for a helmet that might be outdated in September. I'd not want to take the risk. Access to the very small camera/buttons is another consideration; the wireless remotes frequently fail, so having hands-on access is necessary. That might be tough in a "built in" system. Back to the original point of RSL or not, most of my rigs do not have an RSL; I'm slowly getting them converted (3 now have RSL). I've changed my opinion as my gear selection for camera jumps has changed. Other than demos and specialty camera jumps, I can't see a viable reason to not have an RSL.

Chuck, I did test it. The photo I was trying to find of the snag point being at the base vs being at the attachment is my helmet/fish scale. I can't find it ATM. The VRB came off comparatively easily when rotated but was damn near impossible with a straight turn. It released before the camera mount broke. That said, I'm sure *you* could manage it. You're highly experienced, likely quite capable in a malfunction situation. But most of the people that need to read and understand this conversation aren't anywhere near as capable nor experienced as you. FWIW, GoPro mounts are a tad more expensive than a dime In my case, the case mount flange itself broke before the snap bracket in the mount broke. YMMV.

Chuck, I couldn't quickly find the thread in Photo where there are two relevant links, but both show the GoPro mount under stress is not at all easy to break. It was shown (IIRC) that around 60lbs of force was required. Imagine needing that force while snagged, spinning, and under stress. It was also shown than the tear factor of VRB at the point of contact via a line, was greater than the Hanson archery scale's limit of 100lbs. This is a relevant video. I'll second the suggestion for a third-party GoPro snag-resistant mount such as those that Cookie, Chutingstar, and Square 1 sell.

Yes, I think that ebooks are "that secure from copying." I'd suggest you learn more about e-books. Can they be copied? Sure. So can a paper book, just about as easily. How many e-books have you published? I've published quite a few. So far, all but two have easily outsold the IRM. None have been pirated to my knowledge and if they have, it's no reflection on sales to date. Two are required textbooks for media university curricula. Dan BC sure didn't hesitate to put out his book on Amazon. Nor did Melissa/Roger Nelson. Both have easily outsold the IRM. Howzabout you provide any good reason that an e-book wouldn't benefit the membership besides the age-old saw of "we'll only sell one copy." Overall, it's a Luddite response built around FUD. Were it remotely accurate, Amazon, iTunes, and other sites wouldn't be able to function. Then again, maybe someone has buffaloed you into believing the IRM actually makes money for the USPA? Hint; it doesn't. Imagine the IRM being updated every 6 months vs every 2 years? Zero shipping cost. Near perfect profit. Managed by someone other than USPA so that USPA merely collects a check. Accessible to everyone, all the time, on a phone, tablet, laptop, desktop. With printing controls, and trackable purchases. Not to mention the side opportunities to generate revenue via ads on the distribution pages/websites that might inspire a few non-skydivers to look into the sport? There are no downsides, and a great number of upsides.

So you really don't know, you're just guessing. Yeah, those are the only two possibilities. Or, it could be something else that doesn't fit your USPA Evil Empire worldview. You never answered my question. Which of the two people who work on the IRM (and keep in mind that working on the IRM takes up maybe 10% of their time at most) is trying to protect their job by keeping it in paper format? You're such an expert on USPA, is it Jim or Elijia who's sandbagging? Yeah, perhaps. I've authored several small sections of both books for USPA, and been a part of the process in editing/vetting those segments. That might suggest I'm really not full of shit. No finger pointing at persons here, it might be more than just one or two people. It might be fear of technology (which is the response I've been given). It might be a desire to do things the "old way." I'd like to hear your reason for the IRM to not be e-vailable. I've heard USPA's reasoning, and it's a crock of shit. USPA isn't at all an evil empire, but there certainly is a _lot_ of dead wood in the pile. There are some good people trying to good things, too. Unfortunately, they're not listened to very often because "they just don't know how things work around here." Well...in today's world of technology, not too many long-term people know how things *can* work around 'here."

a 1/4-20 thumbscrew in the L bracket on the front of the flat top. AA lithium. In this image, you can see a camera mounted where I usually put the light.

Your eye still won't be composing the frame, your body positioning for the frame, and your experience knowing what it takes to instinctively create the opportunities. Ergo, the photos belong to the one "pushing the button" and "composing the frame"

The compression is terrible. The FOV too narrow for most kinds of work, so not one I'd choose. I've ignored it for the "ultimate POV shoot we're doing this week/month for DZ.com simply because of the poor quality/compression.

Have you ever laid out a book Dan? It's a time-consuming process, especially with something like the IRM. An e-version can be appended in a matter of a day or so, and done locally (not hired out). I'm not intimate with how USPA produces the IRM, but it's obvious that it's not laid out for e-pub. That alone means it's using a lot of time. There are only two reasons to take a lot of time on what technology has made very simple: -Ignorance of technology and ability to spend unnecessary funds or -A desire to continue doing things "the old way" because it maintains an illusion of a great deal of time expended (thus justifying a job). A week spent laying out an epub will pay large dividends in unspent man-hours over future years. I just completed an update on a 570 page epub I wrote 2 years ago. It took an afternoon to update the entire epub vs what used to take nearly 3 months. Or perhaps you're right; I'm just full of shit. Therefore, why is the IRM not available via e-pub?

no, not correct. Under any circumstance but a very specific work for hire written agreement, creative content always belongs to the creator of the content. Remember when you were a kid in school? Your parents never got the negatives of your school pix; Jostens owns them. Your parents merely paid for a print of the negative Josten's owns, created at your parent's instigation.

This looks like a photo of this guy's jump. He probably paid for the photo, so IMO, he owns it. If he grabbed it from a website that CD posted it to, then not so much. So if he buys the pic, then it's his. That's not at all how copyright works. The photo belongs to the photographer or the DZ, depending on agreements. The right to VIEW and DISPLAY the copy goes to the person in the photo. When you buy a song on iTunes, you do not own the song. YOu've purchased a license to listen to it whenever you want.

I've been told that "it's just too easy for people to copy/steal." It's not. Jay Stokes was pushing to see this happen when he was pres. I haven't spoken to Sherry Butcher about it since she took office, but she's so damn progressive and tech-smart, I'd be stunned if she was opposed. My guess is that someone at USPA wants to protect their job. Look to CSPA for a very good example of how this can be done. The training videos we have for AFF for example, can be embedded straight into the publication. No more searching for video, it's a true rich media "resource." https://vimeo.com/5198174 https://vimeo.com/11609685 Imagine these videos playable directly from inside the IRM? As a reminder, refresher, single-point repository?

Translation; "Size doesn't matter" ooops...the attachment didn't stick and I didn't notice.