Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

WIRED -> DJ Roller's 3D Underwater 'The Last Reef"

Clark Dunbar

Clark Dunbar

Mammoth HD
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
1,299
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Location
Montana/USA
Website
www.mammothhd.com
WIRED Magazine's Online version just published a short article on DJ Roller and his 3D film - "The Last Reef" shot on RED using his custom 3D Underwater rig.... the article chopped out the paragraph on the use of REDs.... but some nice pce from the production and the rig

Nice article feature in WIRED!

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/01/pl_last_reef/
 
I think that's liquid pictures housing/rig
 
Yeah they did a great work, but still waiting so anxiously to get our DEEP ATOM form Gates and ET,
to put tour EPIC cameras underwater, such a compact and light 3D Underwater rig, it will be amazingly
easier to use and capture different images even in closer proximities and smaller caves.
 
Gotta hand it to Liquid Pictures on this pioneering work. Looks like it has inspired a number of very similar rig/housing projects. Imitation = flattery!

I got a sneak peak at the Liquid Pictures Gen 2 recently... it's obvious that they used the 2 years of experience WELL to refine their design. Refined to Epic proportions :-)
 
Last edited:
It is the first underwater 3D Imax shot with a beam splitter. I believe all other were shot with side-by-side rigs.
I also think it is the first underwater IMAX shot with RED cameras. Should be interesting to watch.
Screening at LG IMAX theatre, Darling Harbour, Sydney, tomorrow at 17:30. See you there.
 
I just came back from a private screening of "The Last Reef" at the LG IMAX theatre in Darling Harbour.

It is heartbreaking to write a review of a conservation underwater film which is done poorly. So, what went wrong?
In a word: just about everything.

1. The biggest let down is that the film has no story. The narration preaches some environmental messages, but the images do not reflect what is said and do not have any continuity. The viewer's perception is of a random sequence of images cut and mixed together, displayed in random order. There was no animal behaviour shown and there was not a single sequence. (One usually needs at least 10-14 good sequences where something happened, linked together to call it a film).

2. The camera operation was very shaky and random. Framing was bad, with clips cut such the subjects appeared at different edges of the screen forcing the eyes to go from top to bottom, left to right and back. This and the lack of continuity of movement and some basic mistakes in editing made for a very difficult and painful viewing. After five minutes my eyes were watering and very strained.

3. The focus was nearly always off....way off!

4. I was surprised how soft the entire footage looked. Not just in the corners, but on the entire frame. I have seen sharper HD images, much sharper.

5. The footage was often noisy with fixed noise pattern (like a grid) showing clearly. As it appeared to be most often a red pattern, I assumed that the red channel was underexposed greatly and brought up in post.

6. Time Lapse sequences shot on land were disruptive and difficult on the eyes. I think this is because they must have been shot with short shutter speed, but also seemed displaced and disjoint when cut with underwater sequences. Where is Tom Lowe when you need him?

7. The stereoscopic effect worked some of the time (nudibranchs), but most of the time the eye strain was just too much. Composition of foreground and background subjects was often unfortunate and I had great difficulty fusing the images. Most wide and medium angles were very straining on the eyes.

I'd like to find some positives, I'm sure there are some, but I'm overwhelmed with the negatives and need to dig deep. I liked some super macro shots and, although quite soft across the entire frame and often shaky, the 3D effect looked quite good on the large screen. The encounter with manta rays was nice and usually framed well.

It is really disappointing. I wish I could say that I loved it, but I didn't. It was really bad film badly done and I'm sad that it is an underwater nature film, which I always stand for, promote and adore.

Oh, forgot to mention: it was shot on Red Ones with the first beam splitter housing, not that any of it mattered :(
 
Sorry to hear that Pawel, but thanks for posting. I tried to make it there last night but just didn't happen in the end.

I know that you, like all of us, want Red to shine and stand out underwater so it must have been difficult to write that review.

Anything you can boil down to errors in post or even projection, or did the things you saw happen at the rig and sensor level in your opinion?
 
Thanks Jim, I hope you will be able see it soon. It is still worth watching.

I guess I was initially curious to see how the beam splitter and flat port performed on a giant screen. And, I must say that super macro shots looked quite good from the point of view of the 3D effect and scale. The lack of sharpness actually didn't detract me that much from the overall experience. And, what I was skeptical about, turned up not too bad actually. The manta sequences were nice too, even if the focus was in the wrong spots.

I think the main let down was in basic film making process. I guess we are used to so many interesting, quirky and unexpected sequences shown by so many known and less known producers: Howard Hall, Bob Cranston, BBC and, in particular David Hannan. The reason I highlighted Dave is that he often shoots music films with no narration at all, yet the sequences and images always keep me engaged and there is a captivating story in how they are put together in a film. I love them all.

The editing was random, at best. For example, some basic rules, like continuity of movement, framing of the main subject between the shots and continuity of a sequence were all violated on most cuts.

But, the main problem was the story, or the lack of it.
 
Congratulations to DJ for getting his work out there, getting attention from Wired and making it happen!

(Pawel, you sure do have a knack for jumping into other people's threads and eviscerating their achievements. A great deal of what you are saying here is purely subjective. I would suggest that if you want to creatively comment on somebody's work, start a new thread on it instead of jumping into and hijacking what is clearly supposed to be something congratulatory.)

Lucas
 
Lucas,

You have a knack of having an "opinion" on everything that you haven't actually seen.

The thread is about "The Last Reef" IMAX film and so was my post. It was my personal opinion after actually watching it. How is that hijacking a thread?

I clarify to you that this thread is NOT about me and your personal remarks are unwelcome on this board and not subject of this thread.

If you don't like my opinion about the film, you are welcome to post your own, hopefully after watching it.

On another thread, George offered an interesting opinion, which I think, belongs in this thread too:

George Evatt said:
I was sitting next to Pawel at last night’s screening of “The Last Reef” and am less critical but agree with him in general. The narrative about an important subject just did not come togeather and was repetitive. The underwater shots weren’t spectacular and certainly nothing new and the music was hugely overbearing and did not match the rather ordinary visuals. On the plus side, the macro footage was great, and sharp compared to everything else and also had great depth of field.

As to the general sharpness of the image, it was quite soft, but now that I think if it I have never seen an IMAX movie that was really sharp. For instanced the pre-movie massages on the screen about how to use 3D glasses etc also looked soft. The Darling Harbour IMAX cinema is said to be the largest in the world. The projection system just can't seem to do it I suspect.

My friend Neil, sitting on my other side commented after that he had never seen an IMAX movie that he would not rather just watch on a regular sized cinema screen, a interesting point. However people all over the world love the spectacle of IMAX and they get a lot of bums on seats.

George Evatt
www.coralseatv.com
Sydney, Australia.
Underwater with Phanton, Red Epic and Arri Alexa cameras
Click to expand...
 
DJ is definitely a PIONEER and a GREAT GUY.....And he's a taker of chances....I have NOT seen this film but know DJ. One of the most humble guys in the business next to Howard Hall. What i do know of DJ and his first gen Rig...is that he learned right out of the gate and built a Gen 2 rig.....DJ's a smart guy and gets things done....The film editing/music and much of what i hear Pawel talking about is certainly out of DJ's control. As for focus not being sharp and not in focus---well, this could be any number of things...from projection system to post work or any number of things we don't know about....But as pointed out also by Pawel....when have we seen a tack sharp IMAX projection? I believe that day is coming....But DJ is just too good a film-maker and camera operator that i would be hard pressed to believe he shot out of focus images or set convergence and I/O out of range....That's not DJ....So the film critique is one thing....but too bad it was not a positive experience for some....

I'll look to see it when it lands in La Paz .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top