Underwater Bubble Blowers User Group Thread NEW

[Tom Hamilton]

A somewhat all-encompassing indictment there, in view of the work done in the last twenty years or so by some very talented pioneers.

Critics have the easiest job in the industry, they don't have to go out there and actually produce. Parasites, sea lice, barnacles, for lack of more precise descriptors, it's a wonder to me they actually get paid for what they do. Funny old world we live in, the mutual interdependence of it all.

In natural history terms, what would you consider a strong story line, something that would be exempted from the 'most' you mention?

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Tom,

You're a bit rough on the edges, but I like you man, diamonds start like that, though I hope you never get polished into a politically correct gem

There isn't indeed much story in a lot of natural history films, and that's due both to the prevailing attitude that to make crowd pleasing documentaries you need to produce eye candy that is easily digestible without potentially troublesome political connotations, and also because, well, unless you introduce a story line that has some elements of fiction, flora and fauna don't conform to notions of "do that cute thing on cue". But I will say that those few film makers with the clout to produce those films, and they are usually the same five-six names time after time, should strive to introduce a bit more challenging storylines while still keeping the eye candy overflow. For a little too long now have they gotten away with difficult images that were almost impossible to shoot and required large crews, complex set ups, challenging dives and big budgets, but somehow border on childish when on the big screen. One thing that made BBC's Seas of Life so effective was actually the lyrical, complex orchestral arrangements, as opposed to the unbearable soft pop rip offs the typical IMAX film relies on. That would be a good starting point.

And on that note, the French production "Oceans" is really amazing. Our very own George Evatt, from Coral Sea TV, worked on it and I'm actually publishing an article from him about some of the challenges of that production on our site UnderwaterCinema.com, but I would submit that Oceans is probably the most ambitious natural history production ever undertaken, with the majority of its sequences being nothing short of majestic. Yes, some of us could do some of those things better, but in general, it is an amazing product. It was shot on F-900 HDCAMS in custom housings, but trust me, the "lowly" 1080p or the "corner softness" is the last thing you think about when you watch this thing. I am not in love with the concept of this film, its sensibilities are too Jacques Perrin for my taste, but it is at the very top of what's out there for a fact.

 

[Johnny Friday]

Rudi,
off to a good start i see at: www.underwatercinema.com
Look forward to your many articles and posts.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Thanks Senor Friday, I'll be calling on you soon for an article right up your alley.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Rudi, I agree with much what you said except:

... It was shot on F-900 HDCAMS in custom housings, but trust me, the "lowly" 1080p or the "corner softness" is the last thing you think about when you watch this thing..

With 2/3" sensor corner sharpness is not much of an issue because the image plane curvature caused by an 8"dome would be very small compared to that with a 30mm wide sensor.

I also have somewhat different opinion about the Oceans than you do (or maybe similar as you said it was not for your taste). I think Oceans was rather poor considering the budget and scale of the production, both technically and artistically. Just my personal opinion

 

[Michael Hastings]

Huh? Howard Hall is shooting an imax film now on two formats for McGilvary Freeman: 70mm & Epic 5k. Bob C. and I have been shooting an Antarctic film slated for IMAX release on Epic and they'll likely fill in a lot of shots with 720p & 16mm footage that makes the story. Antlantic Productions in UK is using some my epic stock combined with Alfredo Barroso's P2 720 footage because the shots make the story. Not sure i understand what you are saying pawel.

A while back I was asked to see if I could replace the dome on one of McGillivray-Freeman's IMAX film camera housings since the original maker was no longer around. Turned out it was the EXACT same 6" acryiic dome that I use on our consumer housings and to replace the scratched domes on the current Aquatica screw type ports I use for the REDONE and Epic housings.

Just sayin' ...

 

[Michael Hastings]

Rudi,
off to a good start i see at: www.underwatercinema.com
Look forward to your many articles and posts.

Rudi:

I noticed on your site that you are pretty high (as I am) on the Blackmagic design raw 2.5K (2.5K and a nice software package for $3K) cinema camera. Just wanted to let the bubble blowers know that I am a Blackmagic dealer and of course will have a housing for it as well.

 

[Tom Hamilton]

Tom,

You're a bit rough on the edges, but I like you man, diamonds start like that, though I hope you never get polished into a politically correct gem

Errr..., thanks? :blush5:

Points well taken, I thought the French production, despite some spectacular camera work, came off a little cheesy.

There are some folks out there, however, knocking home runs over the fence. http://www.sharkwater.com/

Pardon the baseball analogy, for you dunnunda types, the Oz Rules Footy equivalent would be "Retaliate First".

 

[jim kozmik]

OCEANS WAS great..for 52 million...only point bothered me was the swallow ocean box they built over the reef with robotic camera arms moving the camera about..sort of lost me for the natural ocean shots..52 million are you kidding must have done some major on site parties going on..only dream of these type of budgets and locations I guess.............

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Mike,

Yes, I am excited about the camera. At first I thought the 13 stops DR was a hoax, but after seeing some more videos done with it, the little camera has amazing DR, dare I say, on par with Epic. I look at it as an HD system, no more than that, but as that, it is a great addition to the toolkit. Only thing remains for me to ascertain is whether it can actually shoot any decent wide angle with the few lenses wide enough to be of any use with it. Keep me posted about arrival time Mike, I know the camera has been delayed for sensor problems, but I know I will be picking up one or two o' em.

Rudi:

I noticed on your site that you are pretty high (as I am) on the Blackmagic design raw 2.5K (2.5K and a nice software package for $3K) cinema camera. Just wanted to let the bubble blowers know that I am a Blackmagic dealer and of course will have a housing for it as well.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Actually, I've heard the budget was as high as 80 million (Euros mind you) but definitely higher than 52 million,

And yes, for that budget, a lot more, and a lot better, could have been done, specially when you consider that BBC's Seas of Life was done for 12 million. But a lot of that budget went to things that are considered must-haves in the old, European studio mentality, which ironically, is more antiquated and stagnant than its Hollywood counterpart. As somebody who did an internship in my youth in the biggest studio in Europe, I was and am mind boggled at the amount of people and volume of infrastructure they feel they must have in place before they even move one inch. But still, Oceans looks great, it spanned the globe (something a lot of docs that claim to do so don't actually do) and it has some very unique sequences, that probably have not been captured as good before or since.

OCEANS WAS great..for 52 million...only point bothered me was the swallow ocean box they built over the reef with robotic camera arms moving the camera about..sort of lost me for the natural ocean shots..52 million are you kidding must have done some major on site parties going on..only dream of these type of budgets and locations I guess.............

 

[Rudi Herbert]

...and while I have your ears, something I've been thinking about,

What makes a housing, "the" housing to put your precious camera in and go underwater to get "the" images you dream about?

Like most here I'm sure, I get frequent requests for advice on housings from friends and acquaintances in the film community, people who are either taking their first steps underwater, are becoming more serious about their existing underwater careers, or simply run rental houses and want to offer housings to suit their cameras. Recently, I have recommended proven products, and was invariably told they were "too big" for the needs. Obviously, I can understand that we all want a system that is light and small as possible underwater, but to what point are we willing to sacrifice or compromise important features in order to get that size and weight? There is a newer type of shooter graduating to higher end cameras like RED, who cut their teeth on GoProsor DSLRs, and seem unwilling to move to anything much bigger than that, which is understandable. Yet, professional cameras require professional features and controls, and all that requires space/volume to implement, regardless of how form hugging a housing can be. What do people here think?

Are your Gates Deep Reds and Deep Epics, or your Aquavideos R1 and Epic too big or can you get whatever you need out of them? Or have you found yourselves impeded in achieving certain shots due to the bulk of your housings? Are there gears/controls/features you don't need? Are you willing to sacrifice a 400 ft depth rating for less weight? Are you willing to sacrifice, for example, the "bullet proof" reliability of something like a Gates, which comes obviously from thick walls and sturdy (heavy) components for something less heavy, and potentially less reliable? Where do we draw the line? Are these newer film makers just spoiled by the smaller size of lesser technologies (GoPro, come on1, 5D, no thanks) or would we rather have a do-all housing that can tackle anything at the expense of added weight/volume? What do you globe trotting image wranglers think?

For my part, I will say that many a time I have been unacceptably frustrated by the poor balance of small housings, finding quirky things like side heavy, nose heavy, nose buoyant, so annoying that they are just not worth the hassle. There's a very satisfying feeling that comes from handling a well balanced, slow moving housing underwater, but those are always BIG. I have wished for the same predictability in a smaller package, but I'm not sure such a thing is possible given how cramped the insides of said housings already are. I should point out that my team and I specialize on the one task that requires the least bulk and weight, which is deep freediving, and yet, we make do with housings whose dry weight easily shoots into the 50 lbs territory, although at the same time, we have several contingencies in place, because those housings are the number one source of potential problems, not the animals we shoot. With the exception of Pawel's housing, which relies on small, external optics, and is not everyone's cup of tea as amply evidenced on this forum, are we happy with what we have, is this the best we can do?

Thanks for your opinions, this is part of my research for an upcoming article on UnderwaterCinema.com,

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Once you add lights, light arms, external monitor, or other accessories the balance and buoyancy is likely to change. Every u/w camera operator should start with balancing the camera. It doesn't matter what the manufacturer has provided, if you change the battery, add a module, change the lens, monitor or port, this balance will change too. The housing just needs to facilitate trim and balance by offering suitable attachment points. We do it and Gates does it too. Not sure about the others.

Small housings, however, allow you more flexibility and more capability in the field, particularly if you have taste for low angle, like Bob Cranston. There are many situations where smaller and lighter is better, easier, faster and cheaper. There are housings that require a whole crew and a crane to move around. How is it better, safer, cheaper or easier to point in the right direction?

If it is "too small", you can always strap 1kW of external lights, like I do. You can attach redundant air supply, or a BCD. You can attach a scooter. It becomes modular system that allows you setting up different configurations depending on the job at hand and safety requirements.

I also like to be able to break down the rig into smaller pieces in the water, which makes getting back to the boat or shore easier and safer.

I do not believe that heavier and bulkier housings make it easier to keep them steady. There are numerous examples contradicting this line of thought, for example "The Lest Reef 3D". There are many examples of footage shot with tiny housings, which are rock steady and smooth and suitable for the largest of the screens.

Unlike the size and weight, housing balance and trim underwater are NOT a feature, it is a skill!

 

[Johnny Friday]

Few more sharks at Guadalupe Island:

[/url] Y005_C050_0910CL by RedCineUnderwater, on Flickr[/IMG]


Y005_C052_0910R5 by RedCineUnderwater, on Flickr



Y005_C042_0910U0 by RedCineUnderwater, on Flickr

 

[Pawel Achtel]

A while back I was asked to see if I could replace the dome on one of McGillivray-Freeman's IMAX film camera housings since the original maker was no longer around. Turned out it was the EXACT same 6" acryiic dome that I use on our consumer housings and to replace the scratched domes on the current Aquatica screw type ports I use for the REDONE and Epic housings.

Just sayin' ...

Yep, they used fisheye lenses for the entire film, so no problem using a dome. It must have been 180 degrees, I think. Looked awful (to me anyway) and completely usless for rectilinear lenses and 3D

 

[Michael Hastings]

Yep, they used fisheye lenses for the entire film, so no problem using a dome. It must have been 180 degrees, I think. Looked awful (to me anyway) and completely usless for rectilinear lenses and 3D

What film was that? I have no idea what film it was used for or what lenses they used.

 

[John J Ellerbrock]

Good day all,

On the topic of housings / features / size / etc, keep in mind:

* Gates does not target every market / customer. We aim specifically for the professionals that must bring home the shots. Reliability is king: "Bulletproof' construction, simplicity, support. If you want smaller size, a splash housing, or electronic controls -- I'm the first to recommend other manufacturers.

* Size is largely driven by camera size, but we compare that with other features important to professionals like adjustable buoyancy / trim, extensive lens support and port choices, surface feeds, external monitor...the list goes on.

* In the end, a Gates design balances a myriad of these considerations. Changing one affects all. So again, we don't try to satisfy all customers, just those that find a Gates suited to their professional needs.


J-

 

[Pawel Achtel]

What film was that? I have no idea what film it was used for or what lenses they used.

There were a few. I believe they started with The Living Sea (1995) and the same lens/port combination was used until the Coral Reef Adventure (2000).

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Well, that was my point John,

If you want to be able to travel to the most inhospitable places on earth AND access every feature your camera is capable of, that will require a certain standard of construction and the implementation of numerous access controls, all of which results invariably in a certain mass. Add to that the fact that most cameras, R1 being at the top of that list and Epic not that far behind, require a certain open area for heat dissipation. I mean, when I first laid eyes upon the Gates Deep Red, I felt it was enormous, that I was back in the days when we took U-matic cameras down, with a separate housing for the recorder of course, joined by metal conduit to the camera housing. But, once I put the camera inside the housing, I realized there was no space left for anything, the housing is as big/small as it needs/can be. I always tell those who are reluctant that if I can freedive with a 50 lbs housing to 150 ft of depth, they surely can scuba dive with it down to 50 ft. But I guess if our production needs the type of features that can only be provided by something like an Epic, then you might as well go through whatever you have to in order to house the camera in a unit that can actually access those features. Would the needs of those people who want something that rivals a DSLR housing not be better served precisely by a DSLR or something like a BMD camera?

And yes and no, trimming a housing properly is a skill to a certain extent, but no, there are certain housings where that "skill" is simply limited to manhandling the housing and forcing it to do what you need to do instead of what physics demands it to do, none of which is fun, productive or easy to do for the operator. And if the solution is adding lights, BCDs and the like, then what's the difference to a larger housing, where at least you have a much more predictable behavior. I'm not advocating big housings, I'm just saying that there is a certain size/mass below which things become counterproductive, the very negation of why we chose the small housing in the first place. But again, we will each choose what we know we need, and sometimes, what we think we need.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

....freedive with a 50 lbs housing to 150 ft of depth....

so how a 300 lbs housing rated to maximum 100 ft would be any good?

I disagree with most what you said.
Well designed housings do not require a certain open area for heat dissipation as air is poor heat conductor compared to metal. It is just wasted space. Well designed housings facilitate heat exchange and to my knowledge there is no better heat exchange than having specially designed lens mount connected directly to the biggest heat sink in the world: the ocean. Even out the water the heat dissipation is better than having the camera in an enclosed air space.

I also disagree that small housing is a negation of heavy size rig. It is an option, a choice that you have if your housing is small. And, if you chose to have a half decent lighting system or secondary air supply (whether due to work safety regulations or common sense) you will find that your rig will weigh in excess of 50 lbs anyway. But, you have options.

Did I mention travel?

Of course, DSLR cameras do not offer the image quality that Epic can provide and may not meet the deliverable standards of the broadcaster or distributor.

However, I do agree that certain situations may be better served with smaller cameras. For example, macro is better achieved with small sensors (and therefore lower magnification ratio) without compromising the image quality or even resolution.