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.

Red-Shouldered Ctenucha (Ctenucha rubroscapus)
 

Could be this one.
They are almost certainly mating.

James

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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?


... I'll keep an eye out for that. Am i right in thinking a video shoulder-mount rig is the equivalent of using your body as a tripod? Or how would you describe it? Do you try to lean against a solid when using it or does the IS do the rest if you just brace your leg positions? I suppose it must depend on whether you are using it for for a still at fast shutter speed or for a video clip ... finally, what's your favourite camcorder ?

I was describing still photos only at first. My shoulder-mount, when it has all its lower sections attached, touches my body in 9 places (counting my eye against the viewfinder cup). By moving my left leg back and out and my right leg forward, I use two legs to act as the equivalent of three (is this extrapolation?). I sometimes set it on a bridge railing or a fence post and gain some steadiness for long shots. Since I've discovered the advantages of using the fast mechanical shutter on my VX2100 for memory mode stills, I almost always shoot at normal (1/60) shutter in video mode, even for fast-moving subjects. This eliminates the fluttering or strobing effect on birds' wings you get with a fast shutter. It would be just as difficult to choose my favorite girlfriend as to designate my preferred camcorder model. Each one was my favorite, during their spans of time. In each category, I always hope the newest one will make me forget about those that came before.

I checked the Kama Sutra and I must conclude with regret that the position described above is not illustrated there ... but I do detect a resemblance to the opening gambit of the hokey-pokey ... this ties in with the universal quandry about favourite girl-friends ... you're right in implying that the third leg can give rise to memory-loss ... I distinctly remember this experience years ago, many years ago; it was great fun at the time though, I think.

Forgive me all, for doing this, but I'll have to admit that I must have been subconsciously thinking about the Hokey-Pokey when I described my foot positions when shooting video. When the composer of that famous piece of song and dance died a few years ago, his family and friends had a great deal of trouble at his funeral. They just couldn't keep him in his casket. They'd put his left foot in and then his right foot would pop out-----well, you know the rest.

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?

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.

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 ....