NG Clubie ISO Help....

Discussion in 'Mountain Bikes' started by Ken in KC, Feb 26, 2004.

  1. Ken in KC

    Ken in KC Guest

    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
     
    Tags:


  2. Miles Todd

    Miles Todd Guest

    Ken in KC wrote:
    > 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
     
  3. G.T.

    G.T. Guest

    "Ken in KC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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
     
  4. FlyingCoyote

    FlyingCoyote Guest

    "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:9jp%[email protected]...
    >
    > "Ken in KC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > 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

    --
     
  5. "Ken in KC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > 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.
     
  6. Kantspel

    Kantspel Guest

    p e t e f a g e r l i n wrote:
    > "Ken in KC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    >
    >>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.
     
  7. Ride-A-Lot

    Ride-A-Lot Guest

    Ken in KC wrote:
    > 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
     
  8. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:19:23 -0600, kantspel <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >p e t e f a g e r l i n wrote:
    >> "Ken in KC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >>>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.
     
  9. Kantspel

    Kantspel Guest

    >> 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?
     
  10. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:14:39 -0600, kantspel <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    > >> 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.
     
  11. Kantspel

    Kantspel Guest

    P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
    > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:14:39 -0600, kantspel <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>>>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>.
     
  12. On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:13:50 -0600, kantspel <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >P e t e F a g e r l i n wrote:
    >> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:14:39 -0600, kantspel <[email protected]> wrote:

    >> 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
    >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.
     
  13. Kantspel

    Kantspel Guest

    >>
    >>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.
     
  14. Ride-A-Lot

    Ride-A-Lot Guest

    kantspel wrote:
    >>> 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
     
  15. G.T.

    G.T. Guest

    FlyingCoyote wrote:
    > "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:9jp%[email protected]...
    >
    >>"Ken in KC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]...
    >>
    >>>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
     
  16. FlyingCoyote

    FlyingCoyote Guest

    "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:LDu%[email protected]...
    > FlyingCoyote wrote:
    > > "G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:9jp%[email protected]...
    > >
    > >>"Ken in KC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >>news:[email protected]...
    > >>
    > >>>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

    --
     
  17. Kantspel

    Kantspel Guest

    Ride-A-Lot wrote:
    > kantspel wrote:
    >
    >>>>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.
     
  18. On 2004-02-26, P e t e F a g e r l i n penned:
    >
    > 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
     
  19. Ride-A-Lot

    Ride-A-Lot Guest

    kantspel wrote:
    > Ride-A-Lot wrote:
    >> kantspel wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> 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.
     
  20. Jd

    Jd Guest

    P e t e F a g e r l i n <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 11:19:23 -0600, kantspel <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >p e t e f a g e r l i n wrote:
    > >> "Ken in KC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> news:[email protected]...
    > >>
    > >>>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: http://www.ridephat.com/ridephat/images/sidebar.gif

    JD
     
Loading...