 | - HOME PAGE
- BEST OF PGF
- TOP TOPICS
- TOP POSTS
- TOP POSTS (short)
- TOP VIDEOS
- HOT TOPICS
- HOT POSTS
- HOT POSTS (short)
- HOT VIDEOS
- FORUM
- View all topics
- View new posts
- View new posts (short)
- Your followees
- Topics with new posts
- Your posts
- Your negative posts
- Unanswered Topics
- Forum Search
- Favorites
- Edit Favorites
- LEONARDO
- Submit flight
- Daily Flights List
- Flying Sites Guide
- Registered Takeoffs
- Pilot List
- XC League
- GALLERY
- Album List
- Last Uploads
- Most Viewed
- Top Rated
- OTHER
- Site stats
- Who is online
- FAQ
- Great PG Tools
- FORUM SEARCH
- REGISTER
- LOGIN
 |  | | Please help support the forum costs read more | | | AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 |   | View All Topics :: Paragliding Forum - Forum Index -> Paragliding Gear Discussions -> Photography and Video | | View previous topic :: View next topic | | Author | Message | Big Pete Topic Starter   Joined: 12 Jan 2006Posts: 4364 Post karma: +1253 / -654Location: Stenungsund, Sweden, 58�N, 011�E |  Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 9:43 UTC Post subject: AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 |   | | I am very glad I had my Sanyo HD1000 to support my non-photographic-memory-brain with in 2008, both in Sweden and on trips abroad. I was and still am satisfied with recording in lower-high-definition, i.e. 720p. However, in spite of the uncertain economic situation and outlook, I could and cannot quite stop myself from musing about future upgrade possibilities. One prerequisite would be the affordability or value for money of full HD viewing, which IMO was non-existant only a year ago. Memory prices have dropped a lot, too, since a year ago. I prefer to record both JPEG and MPEG4 to a memory card, I refused and refuse to at this time and age record paragliding video on tape with a rotating video drum. My HD1000 records with a bit rate of 12 Mbit/s, which is not unusual for MPEG4/AVCHD. With SDHC cards of much higher capacity available now for the same price compared to a year ago, I would not mind upgrading to a higher bit rate for better video quality. The HD1010 has a bit rate that is only slightly increased to 14. However, I noticed that the Canon HD-21 can record video at a maximum bit rate of 24 Mbit/s to either an internal 120GB hard disc or a SDHC card. The HG-21 in general: http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Camcor(shrinked URL)_Definition_HD/HG21/index.asp Specifications: http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Camcor(shrinked URL)ion_HD/HG21/index.asp?specs=1 P.S.: I just had to continue musing about the HG-21 while doing chores, and so I'd like to add, that it is presently on sale here in Sweden for SEK 13 000 (roughly 1 300 EUR). I will commence to seriously consider to upgrade to one only after the price has dropped significantly below 10 000 SEK. P.P.S.: Wind noise is a problem with the HD-21, which I hardly have with my Sanyo HD1000 with my muffler, and which won't be a problem for those who don't want to record real-time comment and sound anyway, but prefer music-over. _________________VOLARE NECESSE EST | | | Back to top | |  | | Adrian Thomas Joined: 20 Jan 2005Posts: 2651 Post karma: +4810 / -513Location: Oxford, UK | | Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:44 UTC Post subject: RE: AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 | | | Have you looked at the Sony HXR-MC1 HD POV camera, or the Casio Exilim F1? Both tempting, Cheers, Adrian | | | Back to top | | | | Big Pete Topic Starter Joined: 12 Jan 2006Posts: 4364 Post karma: +1253 / -654Location: Stenungsund, Sweden, 58�N, 011�E | | Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2008 16:04 UTC Post subject: Sony HXR-MC1 | | | I wonder if the price will be tempting. Perhaps Sony think the hitherto rather unique setup of the Sony HXR-MC1 justifies a surcharge... Whoever prefers memory sticks, BTW? | | | Back to top | | | | Big Pete Topic Starter Joined: 12 Jan 2006Posts: 4364 Post karma: +1253 / -654Location: Stenungsund, Sweden, 58�N, 011�E | | Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 16:10 UTC Post subject: Another alternative, the Canon HF11 | | | Here's a link to a review : http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-Vixia-HF11-Camc(shrinked URL)onclusion-amp-Comparisons.htm The 24Mbit/s are said to be most useful when the video includes panning and much detail and motion - that equates IMO with in-flight paragliding video, especially while doing 360s... I compared the weights and dimensions, expecting the HDD version to weigh more, and it does. 490g for the HG21 vs. 380g for the HF11 _________________VOLARE NECESSE EST | | | Back to top | | | Randombloke Site AdminDonor ♥  Joined: 27 Jan 2005Posts: 7606 Post karma: +5715 / -615Location: Kent, UK | | Posted: Thu Nov 27, 2008 22:45 UTC Post subject: Re: AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 | | | Big Pete wrote: | | I am very glad I had my Sanyo HD1000 to support my non-photographic-memory-brain with in 2008, both in Sweden and on trips abroad. I was and still am satisfied with recording in lower-high-definition, i.e. 720p. |
720P is not a high def standard for general broadcast. It was a good way of parting people from money. 1080i is where it starts. Went to a talk today where an editor spoke of shooting 1080p25, but overcranking at double speed. The resulting stuff then played back (effectively half speed) had some lovely motion to it. | Quote: | | P.P.S.: Wind noise is a problem with the HD-21, which I hardly have with my Sanyo HD1000 with my muffler, and which won't be a problem for those who don't want to record real-time comment and sound anyway, but prefer music-over. |
Make a wind gag. This is where so called HD stuff wins on bells and whistles, but does not even have the right basic things for acquiring quality location sound. That's another one of my hobby horses, why is everyone wants to shoot high def but can't even record basic quality sound? Atmos or wild tracks should always be recorded even if there is the initial plan to use music backing tracks. Should the footage then be used for voice over, there are sensible effects to use low level. Tip - even if using music (tracks 1&2) lay down atmos on 3&4 which you can then mix in or try with voice over. Tip - spend your money on a tripod, rather than a hi def camera. A camera cannot be high def if it's all wobbly and out of focus. Decent wide shots on a tripod give you something to edit in when you need to change views, or perspective, or have to cover yet another wobble, or establish the scene. | Quote: | | The 24Mbit/s are said to be most useful when the video includes panning and much detail and motion - that equates IMO with in-flight paragliding video, especially while doing 360s... |
Any serious panning motion will have the compression failing into pixelation as it struggles to get 1 to 1.5 Gb/s down to 24Mb/s. Also you will see solarisation in clear blue skies, as quantising levels are reduced. _________________SteveU "Never more to sing again, the Forty Shades Of Green." | | | Back to top | | | | Big Pete Topic Starter Joined: 12 Jan 2006Posts: 4364 Post karma: +1253 / -654Location: Stenungsund, Sweden, 58�N, 011�E | | Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:12 UTC Post subject: Re: AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 | | | Randombloke wrote: | | Tip - spend your money on a tripod, rather than a hi def camera. |
Hilarious! This is a paraglidingforum, Steve, remember?  I already own lots of tripods, the most sturdy one bought for my S-VHS camcorder(2,7kg without the lead battery!) in '89. However, being someone who (contrary to Steve) shoots video while piloting a paraglider, I see no way to use one while flying, nor do I think it would ameliorate the video quality if I could and would With the present dark season, the time has now come for me* to join the past summer's clips to movies, and while occupied with this chore, I have made up my mind to spend EUR 50 for a ball joint, to be placed next year between my chest mount and my camcorder. My main objective would be to increase my capability to shoot "more vertical" and point the lens parallel to the ridge, even when I am crabbing along it with my nose pointing 45+° away from the ridge. An occasional clip of my face and the glider would not be not inconceivable either. I prefer to not to fiddle with a boom or the like, though. *(I cannot comprehend why some folks would prefer to do that in the good ol' summertime. Could there be an irresistable sense of urgency regarding upload to Youtube?) _________________VOLARE NECESSE EST | | | Back to top | | | | colinhawke Joined: 07 Jul 2007Posts: 1526 Post karma: +658 / -155 | | | Back to top | | | GregW  Joined: 17 Mar 2005Posts: 1932 Post karma: +1592 / -163 | | Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:46 UTC Post subject: RE: AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 | | It looks nice. It's a good way to record the flight and much better then endless point of view shots. I did the same thing in Bir. I notice you have the same problem with a dirty lens.  Most of my shots have a dirty smudge in in them but you only notice it when the sky is in the background. What sort of wide-angle do you use? | | | Back to top | | | | colinhawke Joined: 07 Jul 2007Posts: 1526 Post karma: +658 / -155 | | Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:01 UTC Post subject: RE: AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 | | | Thanks, yes dirt on the lens is a problem as I don't use a lens cap; cleaning out the neoprene pocket in the harness would help ... The lens is the Sanyo 0.4x semi fish-eye. | | | Back to top | | | | Randombloke Site AdminDonor ♥ Joined: 27 Jan 2005Posts: 7606 Post karma: +5715 / -615Location: Kent, UK | | Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:09 UTC Post subject: Re: AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 | | | Big Pete wrote: | | Randombloke wrote: | | Tip - spend your money on a tripod, rather than a hi def camera. |
Hilarious! This is a paraglidingforum, Steve, remember? I already own lots of tripods, the most sturdy one bought for my S-VHS camcorder(2,7kg without the lead battery!) in '89. However, being someone who (contrary to Steve) shoots video while piloting a paraglider, I see no way to use one while flying, nor do I think it would ameliorate the video quality if I could and would |
Please ignore rant below if you are easily bored....... Do you wish to edit and tell a good story? Or are you going to bore people with hours of unedited footage that requires explanation whilst people look at their watches and make excuses to leave? A good video will require an establishing shot at the beginning. It sets the scene. A good wide shot is rock steady, ergo tripod. Basic video production. A good video requires a mixture of shots, both air and ground based to create that sensation for the viewer and to give/establish/accentuate the difference between flying and being ground based. After all the non PG viewer has experience of the ground, but not the air, show them the difference. The first step on any video production should be a storyboard, done with a pencil, on a piece of paper. It's not a camera, or footage, or which piece of kit to buy. This will show you which shots you need and from where. Plan, then shoot. Most people shoot randomly, then try to turd polish in the edit. It won't work. Concentrate on getting good wide shots to bridge between flying sequences. Concentrate on basic skills, good sound, good camera work, planning shots before pressing record, and reject anything that doesn't pass these basic criteria when editing. For an idea of what I'm talking about, watch Dynamic Decisions. What impresses you most about it? Chris Boyes' camera work, or the number of pixels in the camera, or the bit rate the video was recorded at? Or the editing gear used? Basic skills and basic requirements, the different between the odd good PG video and so much of the p**h clogging up the Internet. | Quote: | | I have made up my mind to spend EUR 50 for a ball joint, to be placed next year between my chest mount and my camcorder. |
Get the ball joint like this one, with Velcro to use it elsewhere:  Buy it from somewhere like http://www.turfhouse.com/acatalog/hangglidingaccessories1.html As well as being a camera mount for use on your glider, it can be used with virtually any object as a tripod. This is my way of doing tripod shots when I have to travel light for stills. We now return to the world of no story boards, no wide shots, poor sound, out of focus shots, and people who might totally overload if they ever saw proper uncompressed HD. Oh yes, and HD cameras used with poor optical quality lenses.....  However, HD is not the point. Skills are worth so much more than fancy kit. Tripod use is a basic skill. Master it, or remain in the dark ages. Rant over. _________________SteveU "Never more to sing again, the Forty Shades Of Green." | | | Back to top | | | | colinhawke Joined: 07 Jul 2007Posts: 1526 Post karma: +658 / -155 | | Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 11:21 UTC Post subject: Re: AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 | | | Randombloke wrote: | | and so much of the p**h clogging up the Internet. |
Thanks | | | Back to top | | | | Randombloke Site AdminDonor ♥ Joined: 27 Jan 2005Posts: 7606 Post karma: +5715 / -615Location: Kent, UK | | Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 13:11 UTC Post subject: Re: AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 | | | colinhawke wrote: | | Randombloke wrote: | | and so much of the p**h clogging up the Internet. |
Thanks |
I haven't seen your video and I assure you the comment wasn't directed at you, but generally. However, re-reading your post I would also say to amateurs (in the French sense, not derogatory), remember as an amateur you do not have to make the compromises that the pros do, especially in news, working to very tight deadlines. You have got time to edit. Use it. Ever heard of the concept of a paper edit? You know what footage you've got, so you sit down with a piece of paper and put the shots in a list where they need to go without actually editing (pros would do this with a four way split screen and timecode, but never mind the detail, think of the concept) into a time line. You think about the actual creative process rather than pressing buttons and getting all hot and sweaty. When you are finished you then do the techie stuff on the PC in a relatively short time. HIGNFY used to be done like this in the UK, don't know if it still is. Lots of shows are done like this. Some 4Music stuff is shot/edited like this. There are some advantages to being an amateur. Make the most of them! _________________SteveU "Never more to sing again, the Forty Shades Of Green." | | | Back to top | | | | colinhawke Joined: 07 Jul 2007Posts: 1526 Post karma: +658 / -155 | | Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 13:23 UTC Post subject: Re: AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 | | | Randombloke wrote: | | I haven't seen your video and I assure you the comment wasn't directed at you, but generally. |
No worries Steve, I knew it wasn't. I'm planning on making a video diary of a solo vol-biv trip next year, so your comments are very welcome. | | | Back to top | | | | Big Pete Topic Starter Joined: 12 Jan 2006Posts: 4364 Post karma: +1253 / -654Location: Stenungsund, Sweden, 58�N, 011�E | | Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 19:10 UTC Post subject: Re: Ball joint | | | Randombloke wrote: | | Get the ball joint like this one, with Velcro to use it elsewhere: |
Certainly not! I have no intention to velcro it to the base tube of a hang glider. | | | Back to top | | | | Big Pete Topic Starter Joined: 12 Jan 2006Posts: 4364 Post karma: +1253 / -654Location: Stenungsund, Sweden, 58�N, 011�E | | Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 19:39 UTC Post subject: The firmly grounded video professional's views | | | I have previously in some other thread pointed out the contradiction between Steve's eagerness to make suggestions for free flight video and his hitherto adamant refusal to make any free flight video himself, let alone produce paragliding (or Atos for that matter) video footage and make a movie of his available to the pilot public... When I shoot video, I do it for myself. When I make a movie of some video footage, I do it to help myself relive that particular flight (thus the origial audio with my real-time comments). I do not produce video to make a movie for TV broadcast or aim for a paying audience. When I make a personal movie of one of my flights available to other pilots, I do know that their needs and tastes and attention spans and understanding of Swedish differ, but I do not make different versions to cater for all - the motto is "Take it or leave it". It's easy to download, it's easy to fast forward and it's easy to erase for whoever wants to. I share my movies with those who share my taste, I have no intention nor capability (equipment, time, money) to cater for the rest. I have been thinking about this topic (24Mbit/s AVCHD redording in flight), when I drove to a mountain to improve a take off, and I think I have come up with a pretty good analogy, which I'd like to share: Steve and his abundant professional comments concerning the inferiority of just about any video equipment of what for an average pilot might be appropriate price and weight and convenience, is IMO the equivalent of a glider (plane) pilot volunteering to tell a proud paraglider pilot that his first ever flight over the back from a pimple of a hill was not really a cross country flight, because the distance covered was only 8 kilometers, whereas the official XC flight minimum distance is 50 km (or whatever)... | | | Back to top | | | | GregW Joined: 17 Mar 2005Posts: 1932 Post karma: +1592 / -163 | | Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 20:17 UTC Post subject: Re: AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 | | | Randombloke wrote: | | .... Please ignore rant below if you are easily bored....... Do you wish to edit and tell a good story? ... Rant over. |
Steve's rantings are perfectly correct if you want to tell a story. If you want to record your flights for posterity and to show the rellies ... then the hand-held method shown by Colin is pretty good. The folks at home want to see you in the picture more than anything, and a bit of oh, wow that's a big mountain aren't you high, look at the eagle stuff. Shots around 30 seconds are good because it gives you time to see stuff. Too short is annoying and too long is boring. Avoid waving the camera around too much, you can't see anything while the camera is moving. The technology is unimportant as long as the shots are clear and bright. In principle I tend to buy the best available at the time and try to go mainstream. It will be obsolete in 1-2 years but can be used for 5-8 years. Batteries, size and weight and availability of recording media seem to tbe the limiting factors. I'm also keen on waterproof gear and that is now becming an in-built feature. HD is a bit of a pain at the moment. You can play it on the TV from the camera ok and burn it to DVD. It's too much for most PC's to play back. That will change and you can easily downgrade to easier formats. You can extract quite nice stills from a HD image but they only take about 150% zoom so you can't use them to improve that distant eagle shot. I have a HD TV and I can't tell the difference between HD and TV DVD quality images. | | | Back to top | | | | Big Pete Topic Starter Joined: 12 Jan 2006Posts: 4364 Post karma: +1253 / -654Location: Stenungsund, Sweden, 58�N, 011�E | | Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 22:11 UTC Post subject: Re: general tips | | | GregW wrote: | | Shots around 30 seconds are good because it gives you time to see stuff. Too short is annoying and too long is boring. Avoid waving the camera around too much, you can't see anything while the camera is moving. |
I agree. Or, to put it somewhat differently, make a conscious effort to pan as slowly as you possibly can. The 24Mbit/s maximum bit rate would undoubtedly be helpful while panning. When I reached the "ceiling" at Hvittingfoss in Norway (movie to be released on Vimeo this Monday) I concluded with doing a 360 as slowly as I possibly could to record the splendid panorama. | | | Back to top | | | Bob Moore  Joined: 15 Oct 2005Posts: 2934 Post karma: +1010 / -100Location: UK | | Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2008 23:08 UTC Post subject: RE: AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 | | Steve, I have some respect for you but.... | Quote: | | spend your money on a tripod |
when I saw that I had to laugh! We are talking amateur paragliding vids here, not BBC crews of 40 people (not counting the catering truck and all that b.llox) I was involved last year in some pro film making with a German film crew and a director who boasted they produced equally good results with a crew half the size of the bloated BBC. (PS Don't know who you work for.) Film crews have the luxury of 5 takes for a 10 second shot. I'm playing at video myself, try hard to produce half decent videos with a hundred quid camera and pirated software! (It gives me something to do when the weather is crap.) PG videos are often about the moment. I agree that shots that are too bleeding long are occasionally indulgent, though sometimes they do put you in the place, if you know what I mean? If I see a clip made by some guy who is at 20,000 feet in the Himalayas, I'm pleased he recorded it and don't worry if he has some camera shake. I'd probably be clenching my buttocks too much to be even thinking about recording the event! Someone in the industry said to me, most shots are 5 secs max. Good advice, but pg is a bit different? In a POV shot you want to put yourself in the seat of the pilot and feel what he's feeling. Re mixture of shots, I experiment with boot mounting my camera, in addition to helmet cam mounting I'm currently trying a long pole (which has a ball and socket thingy), but most of us don't have the luxury of a ground crew to film our launch and landing and in flight bits. Editing is certainly very (very) important, as is telling story and the basics of framing a shot and panning slowly. We are all amateurs, enjoying our sport and trying to add some interest for ourselves and others by making a film record of it. Some of it is inspiring, but IMHO it's all valid. PS Just invested all of £20 in a wide angle lense from e bay for my little Sanyo Xacti C40 (non HD). It will hopefully give a better POV, but lense quality??? | | | Back to top | | | | Randombloke Site AdminDonor ♥ Joined: 27 Jan 2005Posts: 7606 Post karma: +5715 / -615Location: Kent, UK | | Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 0:13 UTC Post subject: RE: AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 | | | Bob Moore wrote: | Steve, I have some respect for you but.... | Quote: | | spend your money on a tripod |
when I saw that I had to laugh! We are talking amateur paragliding vids here, not BBC crews of 40 people (not counting the catering truck and all that b.llox) I was involved last year in some pro film making with a German film crew and a director who boasted they produced equally good results with a crew half the size of the bloated BBC. (PS Don't know who you work for.) Film crews have the luxury of 5 takes for a 10 second shot. |
I have not once mentioned crews. I'm not saying that you should be doing anything other than shooting it by yourself. What I am saying, like for flying, the difference between good and very poor video even on the same kit is down to skill. If you are a real amateur, and amateur should mean purely for the love of something, not unskilled crap, then you should be ready to master the skills to allow you to enjoy your love of video. | Quote: | | Film crews have the luxury of 5 takes for a 10 second shot. |
Ever had 5 takes on the winning goal on the FA Cup? Do lions hunting gazelle do retakes for luvvies shooting film? By the way they are talking bollox about the Beeb. Sometimes you see very good footage shot by stringers (solo camera guys) on news. Do you think you need a crew of 40 before a tripod gets used properly, or before someone plans a shot were something enters and leaves frame rather than being chased about randomly in wobbly vision? Is a big crew a requirement for trying to shoot skilfully? | Quote: | | If I see a clip made by some guy who is at 20,000 feet in the Himalayas, I'm pleased he recorded it and don't worry if he has some camera shake. I'd probably be clenching my buttocks too much to be even thinking about recording the event! |
But think how much better the shot would be if skills had been mastered to allow the shooting to be done almost as a reflex, so full concentration could remain on flying? | Quote: | | We are all amateurs, enjoying our sport and trying to add some interest for ourselves and others by making a film record of it. |
I'm an amateur with stills photography, but refuse to accept that amateur has to mean piss poor. I enjoy taking photographs and want to make the absolute most of my kit. Some of you laugh at the concept of wanting to produce a quality, steady shot, of using a tripod or a clamp to find a cheap and easy way of getting quality shots. Without buying anything better I can improve my photos by improving my skills. | Big Pete wrote: | | Certainly not! I have no intention to velcro it to the base tube of a hang glider. |
Do you really think that's all it can be used for? I can honestly say the 95% of my use of that has been for other things. It could be used to secure the camera to a pole, or to your harness with a small piece of tube on the other side of the webbing it attaches to. Hell, I've even hired it to a production company to put in a dustcart to take bird's eye views of the dustbins being loaded and emptied. Your imagination is the limit..... As an amateur you have the potential to produce amazing stuff from very average gear, but without skills or effort it will not happen. I've seen a lot of arguments defending piss poor because people don't want to make the effort. Think how scathing some of you are towards people who adopt that attitude towards pilot skills. Yet in some of these threads I can almost detect people spanking their monkeys over pure numbers on this or that piece of kit. On this forum there is a lot of discussion about flying skills. Notice how in the video/stills threads there is a lot of discussion about kit and numbers, and virtually none about the skills required to use it. I return you now to the sound of people w**king over a 24Mb/s data rate for HD. See the money shot in glorious MPEG 4 using the H264 codec....... Skills? Whoooooosh!!!!!!!!!!!!! _________________SteveU "Never more to sing again, the Forty Shades Of Green." | | | Back to top | | | | GregW Joined: 17 Mar 2005Posts: 1932 Post karma: +1592 / -163 | | Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 0:32 UTC Post subject: RE: AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 | | | Bob Moore wrote: | | ... Someone in the industry said to me, most shots are 5 secs max. Good advice, but pg is a bit different? In a POV shot you want to put yourself in the seat of the pilot and feel what he's feeling. ... |
Statistically in movies most shots are about 4 seconds long. I've used 4-10 second shots in the past and it makes for a nice series of vignettes. Sort of stills that move. It's not a good rule for shooting when flying. It's not long enough to see what's going on and you end up with a feeling of shottus interuptus. | | | Back to top | | | | Bob Moore Joined: 15 Oct 2005Posts: 2934 Post karma: +1010 / -100Location: UK | | Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:00 UTC Post subject: RE: AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 | | Steve, I agree there is sometimes too much discussion on here about formats and definition, but... I did say in thread a while back... . | Quote: | | IMHO it's actually the person behind the camera that matters. |
and | Quote: | | the definition quality is only part of the story AFAIK. I would rather see a well edited, well shot clip, with some good material, in SD, than a badly edited, poorly filmed high definition clip? Of course if the former was in HD, it would be even better still. |
? PS Not w.nking over HD at the moment PPS The guy flying at 20k feet in the Himalyas is such a talented pilot he hasn't had the time to become a brilliant film maker? You should be so lucky. PPPPPPS. I've never seen a money shot in a pg video? Now that would be something  | | | Back to top | | | | Big Pete Topic Starter Joined: 12 Jan 2006Posts: 4364 Post karma: +1253 / -654Location: Stenungsund, Sweden, 58�N, 011�E | | Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 10:41 UTC Post subject: Aloofness | | | Randombloke wrote: | | I return you now to the sound of people w**king over a 24Mb/s data rate for HD. See the money shot in glorious MPEG 4 using the H264 codec....... Skills? Whoooooosh!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
I find it objectionable, that Steve, who AFAIK has never risen above the ground with a hang glider or paraglider and a video camera, is nevertheless continously looking down on those who do with equipment which they can both afford and handle, and who dare contemplate and discuss other and in one or more ways better camcorders as they become available and perhaps affordable. I must confess that I share a part of the blame for this thread going waaay off topic, because it was I who had asked Steve to change the title from being about a specific camcorder to about all (because I expect more to come) new camcorders with a choice of the for AVCHD highest possible bit rate... BTW, with 24Mbit/s max., postproduction may become an even greater problem (costing more money and time) as with about 12Mbit/s... _________________VOLARE NECESSE EST | | | Back to top | | | | Randombloke Site AdminDonor ♥ Joined: 27 Jan 2005Posts: 7606 Post karma: +5715 / -615Location: Kent, UK | | Posted: Sat Nov 29, 2008 20:47 UTC Post subject: Re: Aloofness | | | Big Pete wrote: | | I find it objectionable, that Steve, who AFAIK has never risen above the ground with a hang glider or paraglider and a video camera, is nevertheless continously looking down on those who do with equipment which they can both afford and handle, and who dare contemplate and discuss other and in one or more ways better camcorders as they become available and perhaps affordable. |
My message is (which I detect has whooshed somewhat): Learn the skills and make the most of SD (Standard Definition) equipment, which can do some very good stuff. Do not be deceived by "HD marketing" which might lead to buying stuff with very little performance improvement and editing difficulties. Don't buy HD kit if you can't afford HD lenses or HD editing. In the past I've been professionally involved with setting up cameras and being a techie on aviation shoots. I don't carry a video camera with me in the same way as people do not do their main job in their leisure time. I occasionally do aerial stills, but I've not done this since I went digital. My previous avatar was a shot I did of myself with a film camera. That is the only sort of photography I do in my spare time. See it here in low res: http://www.dfhgc.org/ - scroll down for the picture of the HG at Annecy. You will see examples of pics I've taken in mags - I think that's as far as it will go despite your protestations that I should take to the air and shoot video...... | Quote: | | I must confess that I share a part of the blame for this thread going waaay off topic, because it was I who had asked Steve to change the title from being about a specific camcorder to about all (because I expect more to come) new camcorders with a choice of the for AVCHD highest possible bit rate... |
You need to effect a divorce in your own mind between bit rates and quality...... My advice to anyone rushing off down the HD route would be to look at editing problems, and be sure that they are not buying something that has been produced in a transitional period of technology that will soon be increased. That is still my advice. Only buy HD if you can afford the stuff that goes with it. HD camera, SD wide angle adaptor? I checked with Chris Boyes, and Dynamic Decisions was shot on DVCPro, which is an SD format. Look at it! | Quote: | | BTW, with 24Mbit/s max., postproduction may become an even greater problem (costing more money and time) as with about 12Mbit/s... |
Wrong. (Tedious techie bollocks now follows....) Mini DV, a very common SD consumer format, is based on the DV25 (25 Mb/s) 4:2:0 digital component system, with intra frame compression only. This means that whilst each frame has to be uncompressed just like a jpg, frames stand on their own and are not part of a sequence that has to be rebuilt like with HDV or AVCHD. HD inter frame compressed formats have a very high CPU overhead for sequence rebuild and compression. DVCam/MiniDV/DVCPro all share the same data rate and compression ratios. A consumer format with the same quality level as a professional one!!!! DV25 has a very low editing overhead, and a broadcast quality edit was done on a a Mac iBook (Power PC, 1.33 Ghz processor, 1 GB memory, Final Cut Pro) by a friend of mine some 3 years ago in the DV25 domain. Contrast this with daglocks struggling to get an edit working on a 2.8 Ghz PC with 4GB ram in HD with AVCHD? You can edit SD miniDV at 25Mb/s using an enormous number of editing programs, with not much in the way of high end hardware requirements. It seems a little odd to me, even given the better efficiency of the combination of MPEG-4/H.264 that we are trying to edit and store HD at a lower bit rate than a consumer SD format that is 8-10 years old and was launched/announced in 1995. DV25 rocks. See my point - an SD 25Mb/s system that easier to edit from than HD 24 Mb/s, simply because of the intra/inter frame compression issue? So when you are looking down on those still shooting SD on consumer kit, remember they are doing so at a higher bit rate than you. Enough of the bit rate willy waving, me thinks. @ Bob Moore - you did say those things and respect is due.  However, I suspect that you and everyone else is long gone and it's just me and Big Pete wearing each other down....... _________________SteveU "Never more to sing again, the Forty Shades Of Green." | | | Back to top | | | | Big Pete Topic Starter Joined: 12 Jan 2006Posts: 4364 Post karma: +1253 / -654Location: Stenungsund, Sweden, 58�N, 011�E | | Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 17:22 UTC Post subject: The digression continues... | | [quote="Randombloke"] | Big Pete wrote: | | Quote: | | BTW, with 24Mbit/s max., postproduction may become an even greater problem (costing more money and time) as with about 12Mbit/s... |
Wrong. (Tedious techie bollocks now follows....) <Tedious techie bollocks snipped> DV25 rocks. See my point - an SD 25Mb/s system that easier to edit from than HD 24 Mb/s, simply because of the intra/inter frame compression issue? So when you are looking down on those still shooting SD on consumer kit, remember they are doing so at a higher bit rate than you. |
I see your point, but this thread is supposed to be dedicated to current and coming AVCHD-camcorders, which do not record on magnetic tapes and by using a rotating video drum , so of course I saw no reason to include HDV or DV camcorders in my reasoning, which use that by now somewhat old-fashioned mechanical technology. _________________VOLARE NECESSE EST | | | Back to top | | | | Randombloke Site AdminDonor ♥ Joined: 27 Jan 2005Posts: 7606 Post karma: +5715 / -615Location: Kent, UK | | Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 18:19 UTC Post subject: Re: The digression continues... | | | Big Pete wrote: | | I saw no reason to include HDV or DV camcorders in my reasoning, which use that by now somewhat old-fashioned mechanical technology. |
Not true. DV25 is a file format, not only tape, and in fact is stored on hard disk drives as such for transmission. Look at Avid Unity, or LANShare..... As long ago as 2004 people were storing DV25 material on SD cards, hard disk drives in cameras, and so on. No mention of tape. PC/Avid or Mac/Final Cut Pro use DV25 as one of the most common formats. No tape in my Mac or PC..... I can place links to camcorders using DV25, DVCPro or other formats in tapeless mode. Like this one: P2 tapeless storage/Tapeless camcorder geeky p0rn HDV looks to be slightly more easier to edit than AVCHD. Long GOP MPEG formats generally are very bad for editing. Short GOP or all I-frame MPEG is where it's at..... Did I ever mention that tripods are format independent, working with all SD/HD formats and only hindered by choice of camera shoe? _________________SteveU "Never more to sing again, the Forty Shades Of Green." | | | Back to top | | | | Big Pete Topic Starter Joined: 12 Jan 2006Posts: 4364 Post karma: +1253 / -654Location: Stenungsund, Sweden, 58�N, 011�E | | Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 20:54 UTC Post subject: FINAL REMARKS | | | It is deplorable, but there is no doubt that Steve has managed to wreck this topic beyond repair. When the occasion arises, or in other words, when I have some new information relevant to the topic of max. 24 Mbit/s AVCHD recording, I'll just have to initiate another thread. There is no doubt, that 16:9 aspect ratio in high resolution is the future of video, so to have a maximum of enjoyment using future viewing devices, one should IMO strive to record 16:9 HD already in the present. I am well aware and have been for a long time that recording in 720p is not the ultimate HD way. However, this kind of intermediate solution fits my wallet and matches my viewing equipment for this year and probably for the next year too. A year from now, my 720p movies will be just as enjoyable on a large full HD LCD screen, as opposed to 16:9 video recorded in PAL resolution on a DV camcorder. Eventually, provided that I live long enough, I as well as "everybody" else will shoot video in 1080p resolution. IMO it stands to reason, that if I now use 12Mbit/s for recording in MPEG4 and 720p, then increasing the data rate to 24 max. would be most appropriate. The ultimate device for viewing video shot in the air with the intention of kinda reliving the situation is not the screen of the computer monitor, not even a 42 inch LCD screen, but rather a full HD projector. [/u] _________________VOLARE NECESSE EST | | | Back to top | | | | Randombloke Site AdminDonor ♥ Joined: 27 Jan 2005Posts: 7606 Post karma: +5715 / -615Location: Kent, UK | | Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 21:25 UTC Post subject: Re: FINAL REMARKS | | | Big Pete wrote: | | A year from now, my 720p movies will be just as enjoyable on a large full HD LCD screen, as opposed to 16:9 video recorded in PAL resolution on a DV camcorder. |
DV is not PAL resolution. PAL is limited to 1Mhz chroma bandwidth, whereas DVCam starts with 2.75Mhz chroma bandwidth on both colour separation signals ending up with 4:2:0 sampling before compression. PAL also suffers from cross colour, which in the domestic receiver practically prevents fine luminance detail over 4.43Mhz being shown, whereas DV should, where compression allows, have a full 5.5Mhz bandwidth. DV shown RGB on a domestic monitor will out perform PAL. Your DV camcorder is capable of better performance with the right connection path, which is not PAL. | Quote: | | Eventually, provided that I live long enough, I as well as "everybody" else will shoot video in 1080p resolution. IMO it stands to reason, that if I now use 12Mbit/s for recording in MPEG4 and 720p, then increasing the data rate to 24 max. would be most appropriate. |
Those kind of data rates will struggle with 1080p50 which is the real hi-def goal. Those kind of data rates will only be achieved with long GOP MPEG-4 which will be very bad news for editing. P2 prosumer cameras are offering D-10 at 40 to 100 Mb/sec to do real HD. See here how real HD is recorded: HD ultra high bit rate recording with HDCAM-SR, 440 Mb/s!!!!! | Quote: | | The ultimate device for viewing video shot in the air with the intention of kinda reliving the situation is not the screen of the computer monitor, not even a 42 inch LCD screen, but rather a full HD projector. |
Viewing devices, that's another subject! In my mind for genuine HD the CRT is still, by a very small margin, king, but only in smaller size displays. Other than that, the best HD display devices are Grade 1 LCDs, as offered by Sony or Vutrix, capable of anything up to 1080p50. I'm waiting to see a spec for good HD projector...... projectors are good for multi screen displays, but lag behind LCD ATM, IMV. _________________SteveU "Never more to sing again, the Forty Shades Of Green." | | | Back to top | | | Ikarus Site Admin  Joined: 18 Jan 2005Posts: 2826 Post karma: +2169 / -316Location: Auckland, NZ | | Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 23:02 UTC Post subject: RE: AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 | | | Bloody hell! Talk about buried in technology. My camera kit comprises a Nikon F5 (with variety of lenses, but a 17 mm - 35 mm AF zoom is my favourite), and a Hasselblad 503CX, with three lenses and associated other equipment. Sorry, these are stills cameras and use film (any one remember that?). I bought a video camera a few years ago, and I've had digital cameras and dumped them. The issue for me is that each brand had its own storage systems (different flash and SD cards, Sony memory sticks, tape), none of it interchangeable. Similarly, when I connected it to my computer, I found that I didn't have the right converters and f#@% knows what. I gave up - I also realised I was terrible at it. One of the things I discovered early in my photography career is that you can't let the technology get in the way of the image you want to capture. The technology should enhance your perception, not frustrate it. At one stage, I took so many photos I would look at a scene and be assessing f stop and shutter speed, framing the shot and thinking about what film to use before I'd even taken my camera out of the bag. I was usually shooting with the metering turned off. Changing to medium format, it took me longer than I appreciated to understand the different frame size, and DIN ratio. I struggled for a bit, but the quality of the lenses was so good it was worth it. I should explain that with my medium format camera is completely mechanical; there is no built in metering at all - you get the f stop and shutter speed with the best lenses in the business. Focusing is on a ground glass screen, with the image inverted. I haven't tried using this camera for PG, not surprisingly ... Video just eludes me. But Steve's rants above have been fantastic. It makes such a difference on this forum to get people to share stuff they really know about. Respect to that man. I won't be rushing out to get another video camera - a mate brings his HD videos of flying with his son, and my son kite surfing, and it usually crashes his (new, top of the line) laptop running, yes Vista! When he burns them onto a DVD, the DVD then won't run on our multi format DVD player (and new plasma screen) because I don't have the right Codec, DIVX or f#@% knows what. While he's fiddling, I've lost interest and gone off to do something else. Moral of this story seems to be as Steve says - use existing technology well. Tripod mount (I have one of these on my telescopic ski pole, walking sticks), pencil and paper, right lense, clean filter, patience and a good eye. To use a stills analogy, Ansel Adams remains one of the finest photographers ever, and he lugged a large format with him. The advice to plan first, take shots from different perspectives, include sound and then take time to carefully edit is pure gold in my view. Pete, you may find this unsatisfactory, but you did speculate about upgrading to AVCHD with 24Mbps and gave your reasons. Steve responded to those reasons thoroughly and authoritatively; and very informatively, in my view. Happily, this topic is there for the rest of us to learn from, and for that I thank you Pete for posting, and Steve for responding. Cheers John _________________This motorcycle is too fast, except down the centerline with your nuts on fire and a silent scream in your throat. | | | Back to top | | | Jeroen1  Joined: 13 Mar 2005Posts: 117 Post karma: +71 / -4Location: Netherlands | | Posted: Sat Dec 06, 2008 23:16 UTC Post subject: Video quality | | | Given the same tripod, filming and editing skills, full HD video (the `amateur´ 1080 50interlaced or 25progressive recording) of paragliding is INFINITELY more appealing to look at than amateur standard definition video. For an example look here: [Video: Sorry, only registered users can view embedded videos.  Click here to register, or login.] The depth of colour and detail bring the sheer beauty of the landscape to life without the motion artefacts that are so evident in standard definition recording. Big Pete brings a subject to this forum that is relevant IMHO: The best possibble video quality available to paragliding video amateurs is now (so far only with the Canon HG-21) AVCHD to HD or SDHC. The quality for "panning", which is what most in-flight shots come down to, has surpassed the best amateur video camera with tape. Or as a video expert said: this year tape has died. Nevertheless, I'll keep on recording to tape (HDV) because I like it as a backup, the quality difference is minimal and editing is easier. But my advice is to record in HD, be it HDV or AVCHD (only the Canon HG-21 is superior to HDV, cheap AVCHD recorders can give very disappointing results). Cheers, Jeroen PS in response to John: yes, you need a fast PC for editing HD. You can playback full HD to your HDTV from your camera, a computer or from a blueray disk, but not from a DVD. And AVCHD is even more demanding. But any video flops if you don´t present it well, that is not technology´s fault but the person doing the presenting. - Now why isn´t the link in HTML? | | | Back to top | | | | Ikarus Site Admin Joined: 18 Jan 2005Posts: 2826 Post karma: +2169 / -316Location: Auckland, NZ | | Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 0:36 UTC Post subject: Re: Video quality | | | Jeroen1 wrote: | | - Now why isn´t the link in HTML? |
Don't know, but fixed. _________________This motorcycle is too fast, except down the centerline with your nuts on fire and a silent scream in your throat. | | | Back to top | | | | colinhawke Joined: 07 Jul 2007Posts: 1526 Post karma: +658 / -155 | | Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 0:40 UTC Post subject: RE: AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 | | | Ikarus wrote: | | To use a stills analogy, Ansel Adams remains one of the finest photographers ever, and he lugged a large format with him. |
Then again Henri Cartier Bresson used a small 35mm range finder to produce hand held snapshots, but often interesting images. I've always thought Ansel Adams produced technically superb but rather boring landscapes. But we agree it's not about the gear. Off topic sorry. | CartierBresson.jpg | | Description: | | Sorry, only registered users can view/download attachments. Click here to register, or login. | | | Filesize: | 18.72 KB | | Viewed: | 17 Time(s) | | |
| | | Back to top | | | | Ikarus Site Admin Joined: 18 Jan 2005Posts: 2826 Post karma: +2169 / -316Location: Auckland, NZ | | Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 0:45 UTC Post subject: RE: AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 | | | Well, to take your point, Colin, Henri Cartier Bresson also believed firmly in the moment, and not cropping his images. That wonderful picture was not taken with any high technology at all, other than the eye of the photographer and accurate and reliable mechanics. No, I'm not a luddite ... _________________This motorcycle is too fast, except down the centerline with your nuts on fire and a silent scream in your throat. | | | Back to top | | | | jontyl Joined: 04 Sep 2007Posts: 2184 Post karma: +1615 / -159 | | Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:24 UTC Post subject: RE: AVCHD camcorders with max. bit rates ( 24Mbit/s) in 2009 | | | Ikarus wrote: | | That wonderful picture was not taken with any high technology at all, other than the eye of the photographer and accurate and reliable mechanics |
You don't even need the accurate and reliable mechanics. There is the well known story of Bert Hardy, who worked for Picture Post, and who had been banging on about the relative unimportance of equipment, being presented by his editor with a box brownie (which is about as basic as you can get) and being told to prove it. The result is this picture, which pretty much settles it. Jonty | | | Back to top | | | | Randombloke Site AdminDonor ♥ Joined: 27 Jan 2005Posts: 7606 Post karma: +5715 / -615Location: Kent, UK | | Posted: Sun Dec 07, 2008 14:18 UTC Post subject: Re: Video quality | | | Jeroen1 wrote: | | The depth of colour and detail bring the sheer beauty of the landscape to life without the motion artefacts that are so evident in standard definition recording. |
Motion artefacts are nothing to do with resolution. They are solely there because of compression. Use video recording with lossless compression and there are no motion artefacts. _________________SteveU "Never more to sing again, the Forty Shades Of Green." | | | Back to top | | | Vidimart  Joined: 28 Dec 2005Posts: 5873 Post karma: +3130 / -1841 | | Posted: Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:36 UTC Post subject: I am missing the point. | | | I am really get confused by the comments on video shooting that are going on in this forum lately. It is a mix of technology feelings of who has to watch them and intelligence of who has to shoot them. I have seen a lot of erroneous comments in all this, technology, feelings and emotions than a film may instantiate. Lets talk first of the technology, if you think that a black and white photo is a low technology one you are deeply deeply wrong, the resolution in terms of pixels and in terms of level of grays is far advanced that today digital technology. So the example is just a mistake, that photo missed just the color but are deeply full of the particulars that our eyes first and our brain after appreciate. Resolution, when you go at higher number of pixels the number of them go up with the sqare rules but the reals resolution is still going up linearly. So to go up from 10 to 12 megapixel images it is not a big jump forward. What is more important is number of real colors you got speed of image acquisition to avoid to blur the images and so on. So High resolution video cam alone are not to effective if there are not image stabilization systems good compression algorithms and good color resolution. The image stabilization is made by the lens maker, it is builded around the CCD sensor and usually patented. The quality of colors the amount of bandwidth to follow fast changing images is builded inside the camera-videocamera electronics. The other aspect is the weight, miniature in our case is very relevant, except if you are not going around filming in Tandem wings you have a small autonomy in overall weight you can manage. So said, if you are going to film some birds flying at your side a normal resolution videcamera is useless, you just have a dot not a bird, the same if you are filming a forest from the top, it will look like a confused bush not like a group of trees. IMO the only way to go is high resolution, if you was making interviews on the street you would not need it. The only video footage connected with pg that could not require high resolution may be is acro maneuver, in that case the scene is changing too fast and low resolution or high resolution could give the same result, but of course when you shoot from ground or from another PG the higher resolution the better. For the same reasons that brings you to high resolution I would avoid fish eyes lenses, if you use high resolution and apply a a fisheye lens your filmed scene got another time small and you loose the opportunity to see particulars in the video. IMO any fixed object in the scene is info stolen to the real info you are trying to acquire, so, foots, cocoons and or full pilot shadow have no sense except if you are not showing again acro maneuver. If you occasionally shoot the pilot's face in some moment of the fly this can give added info, to express satisfaction fears stresses fatigue or whatever the pilot is feeling, the same for audio comments. Video standards, if the number of pixels grow as the squre of the resolution, the computer time to edit a movie grow with the cube or the fourth power of the resolution. So more quality more editing time, AVCHD video editing is a pain also with latest home PC, with a older PC is simply impossible. The result is that the difference from amatorial to professional is now in the video editing not in the images acquisition. If you want a professional product you have to loose a substantial amount of time in video editing. Mechanics is death, I have 3 miniDV video camera laying death in my room, just a dirthy video tape, a bounch of heat or of humidity kill them in a second. So SHDC is the only reliable outdoor storing media. You need to pay for a good mechanics in the lens system as well, managing the camera with a continous flux of air at around 35 km|h make the normal powder sealing countermeasures not worth and you camera videocamera focus system may broke earlier than expected. I suggest to buy a non retractable lens system that is more resistant. About the fact that who looks the video get bored, I do not think that any psichedelic effects like to broke in 10 seconds image sequence add interest in who is looking, interest is aded by what you are filming, clouds forest water rivers and so on. It is clear it is difficult to compete with images taken with elicopters. No way to compete with them so there is no hope for a PG taken images to be more attractive than an elicopter taken one. There few exception like wild lifes shoots, elicopters are intrusive PG no, so I suggest for this field of filmings, wild life, forest etc, if elicopters get near trees they start to shake like an hell. So all considered there are still good opportunity for filmmaking from a pg. Storyboards... baahh may be just the car arriving to the takeoff and the faces of flying buddy at takeoff, but almost zero interest there from my side, a more interesting added value shoots could be cloud development for the day of the place and or eventual dust devil or wind gust intensity to give references for the difficulty of the flying sites, also very fast going images to localize thermal in places with high number of wings flying could be of interest to see where the service thermals are. In few words what I am looking for a PG video is info, details of the natural beauty of the place, details that helps me to understand that site in advance before to fly it. And yes HD is a must. _________________1963, Paraglider: "lifeboat" for safe return from orbit ... | | | Back to top | | | | Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First | | | | View All Topics :: Paragliding Forum - Forum Index -> Paragliding Gear Discussions -> Photography and Video | All times are GMT | | Page 1 of 1 | | Jump to: Select a forum Flying----------------General DiscussionFlights, XC and records-- Leonardo XC server-- Leonardo Live Tracking / Livetrack24Events & Competitions-- Competition Announcements, Results and Reports-- Competition Rules, Venues and Advice-- Events & FestivalsParagliding Photos, Videos and PodcastsSites, Flying Destinations and Holidays-- Europe-- North America-- South America-- Asia-- Africa-- Oceania-- GeneralLearning to FlySpeed FlyingAcro and SIV maneuversSafety and PG related incidents and accidents Gear----------------Paragliding Gear Discussions-- Beginner, Intermediate and Sport wings-- Serial and Open Class wings-- Wing comparisons - Wing selection-- Harnesses-- Flight Instruments-- Safety Equipment-- Photography and Video-- Repair and maintenance-- Clothing-- Books, Magazines, DVDs etc-- SoftwareClassified Ads-- For Sale: Beginner/intermediate/sport wings and full kits-- For Sale: Serial/open class wings and full kits-- For Sale: Tandem wings and full kits-- For Sale: Harnesses & Reserves-- For Sale: Other PG gear-- For Sale: Other stuff-- Wanted-- Lost (or stolen) & Found-- For Sale & Wanted: Speedflying and -riding wings and full kits-- Jobs Available and Wanted-- Old ads-- SOLD, FOUND or RECOVEREDCommercial Postings Other----------------Research & TechnologyWeatherRelated Disciplines-- Powered Paragliding-- Towing-- KitesCloudbase CafeOff topic / Website relatedSupport - Helpdesk | You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum | Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB GroupCustomized for pilots by ParaglidingForum.com © 2024 ParaglidingForum.com Admins Privacy Policy | Imprint / Contact | |
