Filipino Traditional Dance Video

basspig

basspig

Veteran
I've recently joined ExposureRoom.com, a more watchable version of a Vimeo type service (at least on my older office machines) and I've put up some short excerpts from a rough edit of a Filipino cultural dance event I shot last Saturday.

My online Portfolio on XR

The most recent videos are the ones I shot last weekend. These were three-camera shoots, one EX1 to two V1Us. They mix pretty well, with some color correction, though on the 1080p display, the V1Us are noisy, compared to the EX1.
 
Last edited:
I checked out your online Portfolio on XR. That is a neat way to post your videos in an organized way. I am also impressed by the amount of videos you shoot. You seem to keep very busy! I like that you are able to mix different cameras.

I enjoyed several of your videos. One stuck out in particular:

Global Warming Bunk: Dissolving the Polar Ice Caps Fear

You used time lapse to demonstrate a simple point. Please allow me to play devil's advocate. What do you think about this:

You may be over simplifying the problem. The big concern is about Arctic sea ice, not land-based ice like the Greenland Ice Sheet, which would increase sea levels if it melted. Since sea ice is already floating on the ocean, it does not raise sea levels when it melts, but this does not mean we shouldn't worry about it. For one thing, less sea ice means that the ocean absorbs sunlight that the ice would have reflected away. As the earth warms, water expands and seas get higher and waves get stronger (more hurricanes, erosion, etc...).
 
Last edited:
By the way, I am just offering another view point on one of your EX1 videos. I do appreciate your work and your high level of participation on DVXUSER. If I am posting something that should not be posted, by all means I will delete it.
 
'Glad you enjoyed some of my videos on XR. It's a real boon to the field of self-promotion and we've come a long way from ten years ago, when it was extremely difficult to find a server to host RealMedia clips that would stream. And the quality was just awful back then.

Re: global warming, a question nobody asks is whether it's really a bad thing. And the prevailing attitute of official GW supporters is that man is to blame (without any real evidence to support the claim) and some go as far as to say that the best thing that could happen would be for a super virus to wipe out the human race (this was an actual paraphrased quote from one of the top representatives of the GW movement).




According to NASA satellite data:
Over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.
[A] 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature’s fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up — carbon is the building block of life — and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: “Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century.”



​
Experiments shown (Department of Agriculture) that with 0.06% increase in C02, plant growth increased 51% under optimal water conditions and an astonishing 219% under conditions of water shortage.
CO2 enrichment also causes plants to develop more extensive root systems. Larger root systems allow plants to exploit additional pockets of water and nutrients. This means that plants have to spend less metabolic energy to capture vital nutrients. Additionally, more extensive, active roots stimulate and enhance the activity of bacteria and other organisms that break nutrients out of the soil, which the plants can then exploit.

Based on nearly 800 scientific observations around the world, a doubling of C02 from present levels would improve plant productivity on average 32% across species. Few details:

* Tomatoes, cucumbers and lettuce average between 20% and 50% higher yields under elevated CO2 conditions.

* Cereal grains including rice, wheat, barley, oats and rye average between 25% and 64% higher yields.

* Food crops such as corn, sorghum, millet and sugar cane average yield increases from 10% to 55%.


* Root crops including potatoes, yams and cassava show average yield increases of 18% to 75% under elevated C02 conditions.

* Legumes including peas, beans and soybeans post increased yields of between 28% and 46%.

Increased crop yields means that humans will not have to convert more fragile forests, savannas and deserts into crop lands to feed growing populations.International research has demonstrated that trees also benefit from increased CO2 levels. In research from the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, doubling C02 from current levels helped orange trees accumulate 2.8 times as much biomass in the first five years of the tests and yield 10 times as many oranges in the first two years of orange production. Other U.S. studies confirm these findings. Since 1890, high-altitude conifers in the Cascade Mountains of Washington have increased in mass approximately 60% from previous growth trends. Studies from other parts of the world demonstrate the same thing.


All of this is at a level of C02 which would not even remotely be a threat to human health. The anticipated rise in CO2 levels should be viewed as beneficial.



Based on the above, I'd say that GW is probably not a threat to humanity.
Now one other issue we're dealing with is that the environmentalist movement values plants and animals above human life. They want to see the eradication of modern civilization, and a careful, methodical analysis of their actions and stated goals does bear this out.


This site is also an excellent source. Even though access is by paid subscription - an article: Carbon Dioxide and Global Change: Separating Scientific Fact from Personal Opinion by Sherwood B. Idso and Craig D. Idso from Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is available for free. I encourage everyone to read it. This is a critical response to April 2007 testimony of James E. Hansen made to the Select Committee of Energy Independence and Global Warming of the United States House of Representatives entitled "Dangerous Human-Made Interference with Climate"

(this article includes info on ocean acidification).

First paragraph:


If there is any human enterprise that should be free of appeal to authority, it is science, where observation and impartial analysis are supposed to reign supreme. However, when the outcome of an ongoing scientific investigation is perceived to be a powerful catalyst for governmental action by the world’s community of nations, and when the leading policy prescription for those actions is something akin to a massive restructuring of the way the energy that runs the modern world is produced, distributed and used – and especially if the policy is developed before all pertinent data have been acquired and properly analyzed – this principle can easily be forgotten. In such circumstances, and even more so if the subject being studied is extremely complex – such as how human activity will impact global climate centuries into the future – and when a divergence of views develops because of ambiguities in the observations and different methods of analysis, it is important that personal opinion be clearly differentiated from demonstrable fact. Sadly, however, this distinction is hard to make on a consistent basis, even for some of the very best of the world’s scientists.
Click to expand...
Then of course there is the question of whether puny little humans can wield enough power to actually affect the climate. Somehow I find that hard to believe. It's wise "follow the money" and look at the bigger picture. Environmentalism is a front for something else. I'm not quite sure I've figured it out completely yet, but I know they're hidden agenda is not saving spotted owls and deer in Alaska. :undecided
 
I think DVXUSER needs a Global Warming Thread (just kidding)!

Some thoughts in response:

So you believe that global warming is real, but that it's a good thing?

It sounds like you've been getting your information from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Big Oil! Do you enjoy the Fox News Channel (I'm just kidding, no one really enjoys that channel!)?

As far as a credible source, you quoted information from the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Here's some info about that group:

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a United States based organization that is skeptical of human induced climate change. It was formerly known as the Center for Science and Public Policy for the Frontiers of Freedom, a conservative think tank founded by former Republican senator Malcolm Wallop. According to an non-cited page on ExxonSecrets.org, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute received a donation of $100,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002 for the foundation (in 2003) of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute's Center for Science and Public Policy.

Do you really trust info from SPPI? It's a paysite?

Just as your melting ice time-lapse video does not disprove that sea levels are rising because of global warming (see my above explanation), your second point that plants thrive on CO2 also doesn't mean much. You said:

Now one other issue we're dealing with is that the environmentalist movement values plants and animals above human life.

If that's true, wouldn't environmentalists love global warming (after all, you said that it's good for plants)?

By the way, put the ice on top of the rock and let it melt. You will see the water level rise in your little experiment.

This seems like similar smoke and mirror propaganda used by Big Tobacco to disprove that smoking causes cancer.

Here are some videos to check out:

Global Warming basics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJAbATJCugs

How Big Oil tries to discredit Global Warming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio

Rising Sea Levels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGTb9OB17xc

The High Cost of Foreign of Oil (I'm not sure about his plan, but the financial info at the start of the video is alarming):
http://www.pickensplan.com/

How drilling in the US will not help us:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080625/ts_nm/usa_oil_offshore_dc

Info from NASA (one of your sources):
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080514/

I have no doubt that there are extremists on both sides of the issue that are crazy. I think that we both agree that we don't want a super virus to wipe out the human race!

I just think that we need to take some responsibility and take care of our planet. It's naive to think that our actions don't make an impact. We may be "puny humans", but we are growing rapidly and the middle class population is exploding (in India and China for example). This growth devours our natural resources and creates a lot of pollution. We need alternatives so that out quality of life is not threatened.

By the way, this issue is bigger than Al Gore and George W. Bush. It's also not a conservative or liberal problem (ask McCain and Obama). It's everyones issue.

Drilling for more oil in this country will not solve the problem. Foreign Oil is bankrupting this country and lowering the value of our dollar. Some would argue it brought us into war. Going green and finding new alternatives is a big win for our country (especially if we take the lead like we did in the space race).:thumbup:
 
Last edited:
I just watched your Sonny Carroll Orchestra clip. It sounds amazing (like a feed from an audio mixer). Tell us about the microphone you used (what kind, cost, etc...).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top