NG Clubie ISO Help....

Ken in KC said:

I've posted a total of two messages here. Each time, I thought I was posting to a specific thread.
My first response went under a thread about some genious bragging about smoking pot, rather than
under the thread in which I intended to reply. My second response wound up being the start of a
new thread.

I would appreciate some guidance on WTF I'm doing wrong so that I don't continue to step on
my e-junk.

Ken

What newsgroup reader are you using?

Miles

"Ken in KC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've posted a total of two messages here. Each time, I thought I was posting to a specific thread.
My first response went under a thread about some genious bragging about smoking pot, rather than
under the thread in which I intended to reply. My second response wound up being the start of a
new thread.

I would appreciate some guidance on WTF I'm doing wrong so that I don't continue to step on
my e-junk.

Hit Compose, Write, or New Post rather than Reply.

Greg

"G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Ken in KC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've posted a total of two messages here. Each time, I thought I was posting to a specific
thread. My first response went under a thread about some genious bragging about smoking pot,
rather than under the thread in which I intended to reply. My second response wound up being the
start of a new thread.

I would appreciate some guidance on WTF I'm doing wrong so that I don't continue to step on my
e-junk.

Hit Compose, Write, or New Post rather than Reply.

Greg

Or, if Outlook Express, "Reply Group" to reply to a specific message.

--

FlyingCoyote

--

"Ken in KC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've posted a total of two messages here. Each time, I thought I was posting to a specific thread.
My first response went under a thread about some genious bragging about smoking pot, rather than
under the thread in which I intended to reply. My second response wound up being the start of a
new thread.

I would appreciate some guidance on WTF I'm doing wrong so that I don't continue to step on
my e-junk.

You're obviously a complete idiot that won't be able to even understand the simplest of instructions
that anyone would give you.

You're not using a news client like OE, Agent, etc. and posting via Google so...I'm not able
to help you.

Other than to say once again that you're a complete idiot.

p e t e f a g e r l i n said:

"Ken in KC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've posted a total of two messages here. Each time, I thought I was posting to a specific thread.
My first response went under a thread about some genious bragging about smoking pot, rather than
under the thread in which I intended to reply. My second response wound up being the start of a
new thread.

I would appreciate some guidance on WTF I'm doing wrong so that I don't continue to step on
my e-junk.

You're obviously a complete idiot that won't be able to even understand the simplest of
instructions that anyone would give you.

You're not using a news client like OE, Agent, etc. and posting via Google so...I'm not able to
help you.

Other than to say once again that you're a complete idiot.

Wow, that's got to be one of the harshest replies I've seen to a simple cry for help. BTW, the
example video links on your web page are still broken.

Ken in KC said:

I've posted a total of two messages here. Each time, I thought I was posting to a specific thread.
My first response went under a thread about some genious bragging about smoking pot, rather than
under the thread in which I intended to reply. My second response wound up being the start of a
new thread.

I would appreciate some guidance on WTF I'm doing wrong so that I don't continue to step on
my e-junk.

Ken

Yeah. Stop smoking pot and maybe you'll be able to concentrate better. 🙂

--
o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o
www.schnauzers.ws

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:19:23 -0600, kantspel <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

p e t e f a g e r l i n said:

"Ken in KC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've posted a total of two messages here. Each time, I thought I was posting to a specific
thread. My first response went under a thread about some genious bragging about smoking pot,
rather than under the thread in which I intended to reply. My second response wound up being the
start of a new thread.

I would appreciate some guidance on WTF I'm doing wrong so that I don't continue to step on my
e-junk.

You're obviously a complete idiot that won't be able to even understand the simplest of
instructions that anyone would give you.

You're not using a news client like OE, Agent, etc. and posting via Google so...I'm not able to
help you.

Other than to say once again that you're a complete idiot.

Wow, that's got to be one of the harshest replies I've seen to a simple cry for help. BTW, the
example video links on your web page are still broken.

Ken got it. At least one other person on the ng besides me got it.

Thanks for the heads up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BTW, the example video links on your web page are still broken.

Ken got it. At least one other person on the ng besides me got it.

Thanks for the heads up.

I was wondering if there must have been some sort of joke there. I sent you an email about that
link a few weeks ago and you never replied or fixed it. Do you not get my message or was it just
passed over?

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:14:39 -0600, kantspel <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

BTW, the example video links on your web page are still
broken.

Ken got it. At least one other person on the ng besides me got it.

Thanks for the heads up.

I was wondering if there must have been some sort of joke there. I sent you an email about that
link a few weeks ago and you never replied or fixed it. Do you not get my message or was it just
passed over?

I didn't get it or it was sucked into the now defunct spam vacuum that was my old email address.

P e t e F a g e r l i n said:

kantspel said:

Quoted message said:

>BTW, the example video links on your web page are still broken.

Ken got it. At least one other person on the ng besides me got it.

Thanks for the heads up.

I was wondering if there must have been some sort of joke there. I sent you an email about that
link a few weeks ago and you never replied or fixed it. Do you not get my message or was it just
passed over?

I didn't get it or it was sucked into the now defunct spam vacuum that was my old email address.

the address I used came straight off your site. Oh look, it's your lucky day, I havn't cleaned out
my sent items:

Hey pete, I was cruzin around on your video how-to page and found some broken links that you
might want to know about. Over on the sidebar (right) you have some comparison videos that go
nowhere for me.

I just picked up a DV cam and you've convinced me to go with strapping the whole thing to my
head rather than lipstick. I had picked up a little spycam that was cheap and the quality is
nice, but the image goes way red when I go outside. I suspect that there is little or no IR cut
filter over the ccd.

<end old email>

I'm now starting to question the camera on the helmet setup. it just seems awkward and frankly a
little too dorky. I think the quality of the newer lipstick cameras will be good enough <shakes
piggy bank>.

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:13:50 -0600, kantspel <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

P e t e F a g e r l i n said:

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:14:39 -0600, kantspel <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I didn't get it or it was sucked into the now defunct spam vacuum that was my old email address.

the address I used came straight off your site.

I killed my old address and added my new address to the site recently.

Oh look, it's your

Quoted message said:

lucky day, I havn't cleaned out my sent items:

Hey pete, I was cruzin around on your video how-to page and found some broken links that you
might want to know about. Over on the sidebar (right) you have some comparison videos that go
nowhere for me.

I just picked up a DV cam and you've convinced me to go with strapping the whole thing to my
head rather than lipstick. I had picked up a little spycam that was cheap and the quality is
nice, but the image goes way red when I go outside. I suspect that there is little or no IR cut
filter over the ccd.

<end old email>

I'm now starting to question the camera on the helmet setup. it just seems awkward and frankly a
little too dorky. I think the quality of the newer lipstick cameras will be good enough <shakes
piggy bank>.

I guess some folks care more about how they look on the trails and are willing to sacrifice the
quality of the end product for the security of looking cool. You're not the first to mention that
reasoning.

Good luck with the vids.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm now starting to question the camera on the helmet setup. it just seems awkward and frankly a
little too dorky. I think the quality of the newer lipstick cameras will be good enough <shakes
piggy bank>.

I guess some folks care more about how they look on the trails and are willing to sacrifice the
quality of the end product for the security of looking cool. You're not the first to mention that
reasoning.

Good luck with the vids.

Well, to be fair, I did mention that it looks like it would be awkward. The idea of carrying a few
extra pounds of gear on my head for several hours just doesn't appeal to me.

I think there's something to be said for being descreet too. If you're not screaming "I HAVE A
CAMERA POINTED AT YOU" you're subjects might be a little more candid, especially during breaks.

I'm still on the fence. I'd like to see a side by side comparison with a newer 480 line tube cam.

kantspel said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm now starting to question the camera on the helmet setup. it just seems awkward and frankly a
little too dorky. I think the quality of the newer lipstick cameras will be good enough <shakes
piggy bank>.

I guess some folks care more about how they look on the trails and are willing to sacrifice the
quality of the end product for the security of looking cool. You're not the first to mention that
reasoning.

Good luck with the vids.

Well, to be fair, I did mention that it looks like it would be awkward. The idea of carrying a few
extra pounds of gear on my head for several hours just doesn't appeal to me.

I think there's something to be said for being descreet too. If you're not screaming "I HAVE A
CAMERA POINTED AT YOU" you're subjects might be a little more candid, especially during breaks.

I'm still on the fence. I'd like to see a side by side comparison with a newer 480 line tube cam.

I use the 480 lipstick camera and I can tell you that there is a big difference in the quality of
Pete's videos and mine. There's more to it than resolution. The big cameras obviously have a
bigger lens which allows more light and the focusing is much better. I'm more scared about busting
up a $1000 camera strapped to my helmet than how I look and the lipstick cam serves my purposes
just fine.

o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o www.schnauzers.ws

FlyingCoyote said:

"G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Ken in KC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I've posted a total of two messages here. Each time, I thought I was posting to a specific
thread. My first response went under a thread about some genious bragging about smoking pot,
rather than under the thread in which I intended to reply. My second response wound up being the
start of a new thread.

I would appreciate some guidance on WTF I'm doing wrong so that I don't continue to step on my
e-junk.

Hit Compose, Write, or New Post rather than Reply.

Greg

Or, if Outlook Express, "Reply Group" to reply to a specific message.

Absolutely, I don't use OE much but I had for that post and should have said "Reply Group".

Greg

"G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

FlyingCoyote said:

"G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Ken in KC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

>I've posted a total of two messages here. Each time, I thought I was posting to a specific
>thread. My first response went under a thread about some genious bragging about smoking pot,
>rather than under the thread in which I intended to reply. My second response wound up being
>the start of a new thread.
>
>I would appreciate some guidance on WTF I'm doing wrong so that I don't continue to step on my
>e-junk.
>

Hit Compose, Write, or New Post rather than Reply.

Greg

Or, if Outlook Express, "Reply Group" to reply to a specific message.

Absolutely, I don't use OE much but I had for that post and should have said "Reply Group".

Greg

Didn't matter though. After I posted that it occured to me to check what news browser he was using.
He was using Google... which makes the answer very easy. He should just need to click the "Post a
follow-up to this message" link at the bottom of whatever post he was trying to reply to. 😉

--

FlyingCoyote

--

Ride-A-Lot said:

kantspel said:

Quoted message said:

>I'm now starting to question the camera on the helmet setup. it just seems awkward and frankly a
>little too dorky. I think the quality of the newer lipstick cameras will be good enough <shakes
>piggy bank>.

I guess some folks care more about how they look on the trails and are willing to sacrifice the
quality of the end product for the security of looking cool. You're not the first to mention that
reasoning.

Good luck with the vids.

Well, to be fair, I did mention that it looks like it would be awkward. The idea of carrying a few
extra pounds of gear on my head for several hours just doesn't appeal to me.

I think there's something to be said for being descreet too. If you're not screaming "I HAVE A
CAMERA POINTED AT YOU" you're subjects might be a little more candid, especially during breaks.

I'm still on the fence. I'd like to see a side by side comparison with a newer 480 line tube cam.

I use the 480 lipstick camera and I can tell you that there is a big difference in the quality of
Pete's videos and mine. There's more to it than resolution. The big cameras obviously have a
bigger lens which allows more light and the focusing is much better. I'm more scared about busting
up a $1000 camera strapped to my helmet than how I look and the lipstick cam serves my purposes
just fine.

o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o www.schnauzers.ws

The damage thing has come to mind as well but I'm thinking that the camera might actually be safer
on my head than on my body. In a crash I know that I very rarely hit my head on anything, but I'm
sure to hit the torso on the ground.

When I look at your video it's hard to really tell how good the image quality is because the
compression leaves something to be desired. I'm comparing the Allaire video to Pete's Sedona video.

The colors in yours are a little more bland but not distractingly bad. Also, it would appear that
the image stabilization in pete's cam help to smooth out the shots quite a bit, but trail
condiditions, suspension, and rider sytle could all be part of that.

One thing to note though is that your video lipstick cam seems to handle changing light conditions a
little better. Your video is shot with the sun at a low angle and you repeatedly hit it damn near
head on, but since the little camera doesn't adapt as well (i guess) the image doesn't darken up
very much. Now take a look at Pete's vid just after the 2 min mark. As he passes in into a shadow
the trail goes really dark and then get's super bright when he emerges as the camera deals with the
light "better". To me the lipstick camera looks more natural. Of course the light balance in Pete's
vid could be attributed to the overall brighter conditions of the desert. Hard to say and I'm
certianly no expert.

In the interest of science do you think you could shoot a few seconds of video and then reshoot it
through the lipstic cam? It'd be nice to at least see a few screen shots of uncompressed comparisons
in different situations.

On 2004-02-26, P e t e F a g e r l i n penned:

Quoted message said:

I didn't get it or it was sucked into the now defunct spam vacuum that was my old email address.

That must explain why I got a bounce on my message to you, too ... not that it was important
or anything.

--
monique

kantspel said:

Ride-A-Lot said:

kantspel said:

>> I'm now starting to question the camera on the helmet setup. it just seems awkward and frankly
>> a little too dorky. I think the quality of the newer lipstick cameras will be good enough
>> <shakes piggy bank>.
>
>
> I guess some folks care more about how they look on the trails and are willing to sacrifice the
> quality of the end product for the security of looking cool. You're not the first to mention
> that reasoning.
>
> Good luck with the vids.
>

Well, to be fair, I did mention that it looks like it would be awkward. The idea of carrying a
few extra pounds of gear on my head for several hours just doesn't appeal to me.

I think there's something to be said for being descreet too. If you're not screaming "I HAVE A
CAMERA POINTED AT YOU" you're subjects might be a little more candid, especially during breaks.

I'm still on the fence. I'd like to see a side by side comparison with a newer 480 line
tube cam.

I use the 480 lipstick camera and I can tell you that there is a big difference in the quality of
Pete's videos and mine. There's more to it than resolution. The big cameras obviously have a
bigger lens which allows more light and the focusing is much better. I'm more scared about
busting up a $1000 camera strapped to my helmet than how I look and the lipstick cam serves my
purposes just fine.

o-o-o-o Ride-A-Lot o-o-o-o www.schnauzers.ws

The damage thing has come to mind as well but I'm thinking that the camera might actually be safer
on my head than on my body. In a crash I know that I very rarely hit my head on anything, but I'm
sure to hit the torso on the ground.

When I look at your video it's hard to really tell how good the image quality is because
the compression leaves something to be desired. I'm comparing the Allaire video to Pete's
Sedona video.

The colors in yours are a little more bland but not distractingly bad. Also, it would appear that
the image stabilization in pete's cam help to smooth out the shots quite a bit, but trail
condiditions, suspension, and rider sytle could all be part of that.

One thing to note though is that your video lipstick cam seems to handle changing light conditions
a little better. Your video is shot with the sun at a low angle and you repeatedly hit it damn
near head on, but since the little camera doesn't adapt as well (i guess) the image doesn't darken
up very much. Now take a look at Pete's vid just after the 2 min mark. As he passes in into a
shadow the trail goes really dark and then get's super bright when he emerges as the camera deals
with the light "better". To me the lipstick camera looks more natural. Of course the light balance
in Pete's vid could be attributed to the overall brighter conditions of the desert. Hard to say
and I'm certianly no expert.

In the interest of science do you think you could shoot a few seconds of video and then reshoot it
through the lipstic cam? It'd be nice to at least see a few screen shots of uncompressed
comparisons in different situations.

I'll give it a try Sunday. I'll be filming at Fair Hills, MD.

P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

kantspel said:

p e t e f a g e r l i n said:

"Ken in KC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

>I've posted a total of two messages here. Each time, I thought I was posting to a specific
>thread. My first response went under a thread about some genious bragging about smoking pot,
>rather than under the thread in which I intended to reply. My second response wound up being
>the start of a new thread.
>
>I would appreciate some guidance on WTF I'm doing wrong so that I don't continue to step on my
>e-junk.

You're obviously a complete idiot that won't be able to even understand the simplest of
instructions that anyone would give you.

You're not using a news client like OE, Agent, etc. and posting via Google so...I'm not able to
help you.

Other than to say once again that you're a complete idiot.

Wow, that's got to be one of the harshest replies I've seen to a simple cry for help. BTW, the
example video links on your web page are still broken.

Ken got it. At least one other person on the ng besides me got it.

HAHAHA, Ken is a FREAK: ridephat.comsidebar.gifOpen ↗

JD