|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 4th, 2006, 02:11 AM | #1 |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 909
|
Pushme/pullyu Bug
Is this position shown in the Kama Sutra? Seriously, I'd like to know just what's going on with these insects. Is it what seems to be obvious, or is this
not related to mating? Can someone ID the species? I've been keeping my eyes open for many years around here and I've never seen anything like this before.
__________________
Steve McDonald https://onedrive.com/?cid=229807ce52dd4fe0 http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/ http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos |
September 4th, 2006, 07:58 AM | #2 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 91
|
Red-Shouldered Ctenucha (Ctenucha rubroscapus)
Could be this one.
They are almost certainly mating. James
__________________
Natural History Cameraman Earthmedia Film, Oslo, Norway |
September 4th, 2006, 08:20 AM | #3 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Mateo, CA
Posts: 3,840
|
In Texas we used to call them "Love bugs". For obvious reasons. The male is the smaller one. Funny thing is, they react to carbon monixide as an aphrodisiac... so they FLOCK over roadways... which makes them windshield fodder.
|
September 4th, 2006, 08:47 AM | #4 |
Capt. Quirk
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Middle of the woods in Georgia
Posts: 3,596
|
It is not well known, that the Love Bugs are geneticly altered mosquitos, created by the Univeristy of Florida. They were accidentally released into the wild when their transport truck crashed. The same school is also responsible for Gatorade and concrete eating termites.
And by the way, Richard is almost correct- They flock to carbon monoxide, because mosquitos will seek it out to find breathing hosts to feed on, which the love bugs can't do. That is why they were experimented with, to create a non biting mosquito.
__________________
www.SmokeWagonLeather.us |
September 4th, 2006, 10:44 AM | #5 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 938
|
One's comin' and one's goin', that's for sure
Wouldn't you know Steve, that what I want to know is 1.what technology you used to edit and post that image? 2.can the same software be used to compress and publish video efficiently without much quality loss ? 3. is it Mac and pc user friendly ? |
September 4th, 2006, 05:10 PM | #6 |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 909
|
Brendan, I used Nero PhotoSnap Viewer to call-up and send the image, which was stored on a 250Mb Zip disk, on an Iomega FotoShow external Zip USB drive. The camera was an Olympus C-2100UZ, which used a 64Mb Smart-card. The pixel-size was 1600 X 1200, with a 1.33Mb bit-size. The Nero photo program has many image-modification features, that include downsizing, but I sent this one unaltered. I also send out 640 X 480 .jpgs from my VX2100's MemoryStick, using the same storage and image-reading system. The same Nero photo/video software package has capabilities to edit video and produce DVDs, but I haven't used it for that yet, as I have half a dozen other video editing programs. As I've mentioned before, I have a full set of digital VCRs that I use more often than NLE for the uncomplicated wildlife videos I make. My standalone Toshiba DVD/HDD recorder (RD-XS52) is very easy to use and has a FireWire input for DV/Digital8 sources. It also has HDMI and component outputs for a TV. It stores 35 hours of edited DV programs on its HDD, ready in an instant to do high-speed dubbing onto DVDs. I can crank out DVD copies in less than half the time it would take me to do it on my computer.
If you do a right-click on both the thumbnail and the full-size pictures and then click on Properties, you can see some of this information. However, not all the data is carried through on the forum's posted pictures. This "old" Olympus C-2100UZ (bought in April, 2001) continues to be a favorite camera among its users, for all-around capabilities. It has only a 2.1 MP capability, but has a nice 10X zoom lens, optical image stabilization and excellent low-light performance. I often use it with my Sony 1.7X, 58mm video telextender, or my Raynox 2.2X, 62mm telex, for 17X and 22X magnifications. For long-range wildlife shots, especially fast-moving ones, this setup works very well. With a fast shutter setting, it gives very crisp images of flying birds. I often shoot it from my video shoulder-mount rig. I will post a picture of this mount sometime soon on the "Support Your Local Camera" forum.
__________________
Steve McDonald https://onedrive.com/?cid=229807ce52dd4fe0 http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/ http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos Last edited by J. Stephen McDonald; September 4th, 2006 at 06:45 PM. |
September 5th, 2006, 03:00 AM | #7 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 938
|
Thanks a lot for that info Steve. It'll take me a while to understand it all.
Am I right in thinking the first para refers to still images mainly? Quote:
|
|
September 5th, 2006, 04:02 AM | #8 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 909
|
Quote:
__________________
Steve McDonald https://onedrive.com/?cid=229807ce52dd4fe0 http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/ http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos |
|
September 5th, 2006, 07:45 AM | #9 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 938
|
Quote:
|
|
September 5th, 2006, 06:56 PM | #10 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 909
|
Quote:
__________________
Steve McDonald https://onedrive.com/?cid=229807ce52dd4fe0 http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/ http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos Last edited by J. Stephen McDonald; September 6th, 2006 at 04:23 AM. |
|
September 6th, 2006, 01:48 PM | #11 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 938
|
Relieved that the foreplay has been sorted out Steve and treated as such I had a look at the specs of your VX2100 (the E version actually) and found that it is one of the few camcorders that gives a measured specification for its viewfinder, 180k pixels.
For my run 'n gunnery (around the nunnery,if you like) the viewfinder is crucial [whereas the the size of the LCD monitor does not help me except for editing]... so the question arises could I be using a better viewfinder. I don't think it's a simple matter of focus in or focus out through the viewfinder to get the scale of object I want to track. Am I right in thinking that a viewfinder should also offer me "image quality" and "screen size" and if so which cams' viewfinders do that better than others? I don't know how many pixels are covered by my XM2 (GL2) viewfinder. Has the subject been discussed elsewhere? Or for starters should I try out the selection of cams in town tomorrow? |
September 6th, 2006, 10:09 PM | #12 |
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Eugene, Oregon
Posts: 909
|
Brendan, I rarely use the larger viewscreen when I'm shooting-----and most often when it's of someone giving a speech, while using a tripod. The small viewfinder next to your eye allows you and the camera to form a bionic team and follow moving subjects more effectively. One trick I use to be able to shoot from the shoulder and be able to focus my eyes on the very close viewscreen (which has no diopter adjustment), is to wear a cheap pair of diopter eyeglasses, which have the maximum adjustment of 3.25X. They sell these for $10.-$15. at grocery stores and I can focus on things as close as 4 inches away with them. Without them, I wouldn't be able to use the viewscreen when shooting from the shoulder. I find the 180K pixels in the VX2100 VF give me an adequate image for good focusing. I've had to use a couple of Sony camcorders in the past, that had color VFs with just 123K and 62K pixels, so the VX2100 looks pretty good to me. The ability of your eyes to see fine detail, has a big effect on how well you can do with a VF with a low pixel-count.
Note that the picture I put on this thread came from my Olympus C-2100UZ still camera and not from a VX2100.
__________________
Steve McDonald https://onedrive.com/?cid=229807ce52dd4fe0 http://www.flickr.com/photos/22121562@N00/ http://www.vimeo.com/user458315/videos |
September 7th, 2006, 01:41 PM | #13 |
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 938
|
VX2100 v XL2
Today for 10 minutes was my first try out of XL2. I only intended to check out the viewfinder but I was glad that a well informed senior salesman kept filling me with basic technical info as I was checking it out. I could see clearly how the quality of image in the viewfinder trembled at high zoom when the IS was turned off ... but with IS turned on the picture in the viewfinder was quite remarkable ... I could easily read 0.5inch print at 5 metres ... even with a tripod I couldn't do that with XM2 (GL2). He explained that the IS was optical not digital. Anybody like to explain that? I found the size of the frame in the viewfinder about 25% larger as well. Sorry I don't have pixels or actual measurements to compare with VX2100 but I'll call to him again ... his price was €5000 incl standard lens. Does anyone know from experience how much the XLH1 is an improvement on XL2 ... I'd love to get some views on that ....
|
| ||||||
|
|