Jump to content


furby076

Member Since 25 Jan 2011
Offline Last Active Jun 27 2011 05:32 AM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Support the California Bill outlawing sale of shark fins introduced

23 June 2011 - 08:27 AM

I am not a CA resident so my opinion is invalid to their laws, but I did click on the other link and signed that link to support sharks.

In Topic: Memory card with built-in Wi-Fi

06 June 2011 - 05:31 AM

This seems pretty wicked. I would definitely get this when it comes in a larger size. I went diving Saturday, only took 50 pics (55F, low vis, so not a ton of pics to take) and that was 1 GB of space. I've done 400-500 pics on a single dive before and I need a larger sized card. I could do 16gb without a problem, but I want a fast storage card (diving with sea lions I used continuous mode to take rapid shots).

So once this tech improves a bit more I am in. As far as speed....I read on one review that a 5.1 megapixel photo takes about 5 seconds...so 18 megapixel should take about 15-20 seconds? As long as I can upload all my pics within 1 to 1.5 hours (interval time) I am ok with the speed. Even then, it's better then nothing. Presently I copy my photos over when I get back to shore - but a camera may flood from dive 1 to dive 3

In Topic: How to pack 10 extra pounds of stuff for free or the return of the duffel bag.

29 April 2011 - 03:53 AM

We've been using 2 LL Bean large duffels for many many years. They're rock solid and dirt cheap (around $50 if I remember correctly). I can highly recommend them.

I use the DiveCaddy for my scuba gear. I can fit my Vortex V-12 (i have a size 12 shoe), my Oceanic Probe LX (size XL if not mistaken), 1st/2nd stage with octopus and pressure gauge, 5MM full wetsuit, hood, pinnacle boots (7mm i believe), gloves, mask, battery box (think small pellican box full of batteries), and two head mounted Sun Tilos lights. All of this comes to just about 50 lbs. I have flown US Airways four times and Southwest (ok Southwest doesn't really count since they couldn't care less). Absolutely no problems using it as a carry on - and dammit, 50 lbs is heavier then I thought it would be lol.

For my camera, I have my nauticam 550d, one strobe (i could probably get a 2nd in there), some misc stuff (cables, dive watch, medicine, moisture munchers) stored in a medical bag. The bag is JUST big enough to fit all of that stuff. It's my "purse" carry-on. Again, same as above, no issues going places with it.

As far as TSA search, depending on which airport I go to and who I deal with, ends up being what gets searched. One time they wanted to see my camera bag, and another time they wanted to see my battery box. They never once asked me to undo my dive caddy bag.

Yes the dive caddy is pricey, but I do love it. For the most part I carry ALL of my dive gear with me (exception dive knife, and a few other minor things). That's comfort. If the airline loses my suitcase at most I will be out a dive knife, a spare light, a few nicknacks, and clothing. The most important thing is that the dive WILL GO ON!

Now once I start diving with my dry suit I will be taking that with me to destinations with cold water....that is definitely going in the suit case. I need to get dive insurance for gear lol

In Topic: Storage of camera rig

29 April 2011 - 03:44 AM

If you leave the housing completely sealed for long periods of time with the seals engaged, the o-rings can undergo compression set. This means they will tend to take on their compressed shape rather than being round and this MIGHT cause problems later on. I always store my housing in a box with the back off but the o-rings are still in the groove. I also dismount all my ports between dives.
Bill


If you leave the housing completely sealed for long periods of time with the seals engaged, the o-rings can undergo compression set. This means they will tend to take on their compressed shape rather than being round and this MIGHT cause problems later on. I always store my housing in a box with the back off but the o-rings are still in the groove. I also dismount all my ports between dives.
Bill


Hehe, double post within a single post. That's new :D

Thanks Bill! When I get home I will dissemble (whow, Short Circuit movie just popped in my head) my rig.

In Topic: World News website

27 April 2011 - 09:04 AM

Blatant mirroring isn't really surprising. For some getting access to material like yours simply makes great business sense (minimal overheads) and does wonders for their profitability. What better than free content? Would we all like free cameras? Yes please! Is it likely to happen? Not in my lifetime, but I digress.

I don't use YouTube (Wetpixel video members, please chip in here), nor have I had the chance to look at how the World News site is actually using your content, so I can't say for certain. It may be within YouTube's terms and conditions, it may not. The clip of the terms above doesn't include what rights you have assigned to YouTube by posting the video up - which might include sub-licensing (including free-of-charge or sale) - and this could be the crux of the issue; Has YouTube given the rights to a third party, or not?

YouTube might be losing out here. If a site is mirroring content, what is the point of visiting YouTube? So what? I hear...... in a simple world vistior numbers = advertising revenue. The more visitors, the greater the revenue. By shifting content off the site, visitors go elsewhere.

I would not be happy with my work being used in this way - this is one reason none of my images are on Facebook for example as they take sub-licensing rights* - so perhaps the best thing to do is contact YouTube and ask?


*Goldman Sachs (Investment bankers) recently purchased a stake in Facebook. One day they will want to see a return on their investment - nothing wrong with this - but when that includes my images being licensed and zero revenue comes my way then I object. Think it won't happen on FB? It already has with another picture hosting site used by Twitter and a news agency........ celebrity images (some of the most valuable in terms of repro rights) are being sub-licensed with no indication of how the license fee is to be shared with the creator.


Are you sure posting pics on facebook means that you assign your rights to facebook? That doesn't seem to make much sense to me and I would wager it is a hard argument for facebook to make in court. Especially since many of those pictures are of minors, posted by minors, who do not have the legal authority to sign away anything. I do know Facebook has some clauses that sound weird but it is mainly to protect facebook, not allow them to sell/give/etc your pictures.