Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

The Gentleman's Underwater Bubble Blower Thread

There is no doubt that Amphibico has always been a forerunner on the the technology end, and though some of their efforts have been met, more often than not, with failures and frequent mishaps, given the nature of the bleeding edge technology they were trying to pioneer, eventually they are bound to get it right and produce something remarkable. I always felt ther products had a lot of potential and were going in the right direction, just that they came to market too soon with too many of them. That said, the Rouge looks like a mighty fine effort to come back into the fray, specially given the fact that together with Nauticam, Amphibico actually gives the shooter several choices in ports, something whose importance cannot be overstated. Regardless of where my allegiances lay and so on, and despite the fact I am one of those who suffered catastrophic floodings at the hands at the awesome, but rightfully maligned, Amphibicam housings, I am happy they are back in the mix. God knows we can use different POVs in our business...
 
Rudi Herbert said:
There is no doubt that Amphibico has always been a forerunner on the the technology end, and though some of their efforts have been met, more often than not, with failures and frequent mishaps, given the nature of the bleeding edge technology they were trying to pioneer, eventually they are bound to get it right and produce something remarkable. I always felt ther products had a lot of potential and were going in the right direction, just that they came to market too soon with too many of them. That said, the Rouge looks like a mighty fine effort to come back into the fray, specially given the fact that together with Nauticam, Amphibico actually gives the shooter several choices in ports, something whose importance cannot be overstated. Regardless of where my allegiances lay and so on, and despite the fact I am one of those who suffered catastrophic floodings at the hands at the awesome, but rightfully maligned, Amphibicam housings, I am happy they are back in the mix. God knows we can use different POVs in our business...
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with your point of view, Rudi.

All this talk about "innovation", yet decades pass and you are still not able to achieve even high definition quality wide angle cinematography underwater other than a fish eye. I personally think it is pathetic. All that "innovation" is focused on features that, again in my view, are completely unnecessary: white balance, look, finger-tip control...

I regard the optical quality, reliability and the size as the most important features of any underwater housing. Yet, all those features seem to be the elephant in the room when discussing housings here. Why is that?

All the "innovations" you are referring to remind me the perceived "progress" in mobile phone technology. These days mobile phones are perfect for just about anything: making piuctures, playing 3D games, navigation, blogging...except making a simple phone call! All features they have are very nice, and completely useless as a simple, reliable phone with good reception, battery life or coverage.

All of us used cumbersome and limiting dome ports with high definition cameras for more than a decade. And now, with the introduction of large high resolution sensors, we made a giant step backward! We actually worsened the optical quality well below what was achievable with smaller 2/3" chips - expotentially! How foolish is that?!

You say that "Amphibico actually gives the shooter several choices in ports, something whose importance cannot be overstated". What choices? I can not see a single choice that would actually produce sharp and undistorted images underwater! What sort of choice is that? To me, there is no choice. This housing, like all the others is not capable of undistorted wide angle images that would be even high definition quality, let alone 4k or 5k. And, Dragon sensor will make the problem even worse.

For me, Amphibico has always been a symbol of the failure in innovation: consistently failing to deliver the features that I actually needed: reliability, small size and optical quality. This is why I designed my own housing and developed CinePort, which to this date remains the sharpest dome port available.

I don't need integraded handle controls...I need controls that are simple and reliable. Unreliable convinience is not a feature I desire or even want. Simple is good. For me, the main purpose of an underwater housing is to make beautiful and sharp images and sadly this has certainly not been the focus of the "innovations" from the mainstream underwater housing manufacturers.

Here we all share experiences and use 5k large sensor camera, the RED Epic. Why would anyone with their right mind want to use underwater optics not able to resolve even HD quality, which was actually quite possible with a 9" - 12" dome port and lesser, but smaller (2/3" sized) sensor cameras? The most common argument I hear back is that the optical quality doesn't matter and anything goes on TV or YouTube. Some manufactures are saying that it is the operator's inability to focus that is the problem, which is probably correct in most cases. But, why bother with a 5k large sensor digital cinema camera?

The main reason I produced DeepX and 3Deep is precisely because of complete and total lack of innovation from u/w housing manufacturers. It would cost me a fraction to buy one of every housing that is available for RED Epic...yet, still I would not be able to achieve what I wanted to achieve: sharp, high contrast, undistorted wide angle images preferably produced with a small and reliable housing. So, where exactly is the "innovation" that you are talking about?

Besides, at this year's NAB there have been not one, but two underwater housings nominated for Prime Awards recognizing the very best in engineering and innovation in production equipment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the first time any underwater housing was nominated for such award...

Just my 2 cents.
 
Hey Frazier, thanks for the heads up on Athos.....Kat is a very nice lady and the first i dealt with at Heffernan back in i think 2007. Funny, nobody ever said she left since i had often asked for her....Anway, she's working on helping me with a policy that may cover Mexico as well. And she's might chatty at that.....don't see her ever having the machine on telling you to wait 24 to 48hours for a reply.
 
Pawel,

A housing's duty, by definition, is to preserve the integrity of the camera and allow access to necessary functions underwater. It is sort of understood that a housing, per se, should not compromise the image quality the camera is capable of, just as it is not necessarily expected for it to improve on said image quality. Those are the basic facts. A system that houses another system to allow it to be taken into hostile territory so to speak. If a housing incorporates optical improvements that in fact help the camera overcome some of the limitations presented by the underwater medium, then that housing has become much more, it has become an optical system itself.

A while ago I posted a long rant here where I equated underwater optics to going to the moon, where mankind was able to reach the moon in the late 60's with very rudimentary technology, and half a century later, that feat has not been repeated, the same as Nikon figuring out how to solve underwater imaging problems in the late 70's, and again, half a century later, nobody has cared to replicate that achievement. I AM WITH YOU IN THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR ANY IMAGING SYSTEM IS, WELL, IMAGE QUALITY. And I am aghast at the poor quality of underwater optics we all accept as the norm today, to the point where I have undertaken myself to build such an optic based on the same principles Nikon mastered long ago. And it is obvious that while housing manufacturers have made strides in every other aspect, the issue of corrective optics remains the elephant in the room that everybody has chosen to ignore. BUT, none of that negates the fact that a housing should also be able to fulfill other important functions, and I was referring to those.

Ergonomics, being able to comfortably handle the housing, in a way that feels intuitive and an elongation of our own body if you will. Hydrodynamics, where we can comfortably, precisely and predictably move that housing underwater to achieve certain results on moving shots. Size, so that it can be positioned in difficult places for unique shots, and it can be swam with for long times with minimal effort. Precision controls, so that we may, yet again, control things like focus, iris, etc, in a smooth manner that allows us to stay focused on the moment and the shot as opposed to having to mentally disconnect from what we're shooting to take a look at those uncooperative controls. All of these things are VERY important, and some brands approach them in many different ways, resulting in varying combinations that suit many different users better or worse. And while everybody would love to have tack sharp, wide optics, but that seems to be something of an impossibility at the moment, then those of us who need to go out there and shoot while we're still alive, need to use whatever is available. And it would be unfair to deny the many advancements made in all those other fields.

Things like port choices are important because, for example, with modern fisheyes, a 4" dome is a good match, and if you've never use such a small dome, you don't know how great it is until you've done it. You can stick that camera anywhere, swim with it much easier, protect that dome much better. Likewise, being able to use a 9" or 10" dome instead of the traditional 8" with lenses wider than 14mm DOES make a difference, even if it cannot compare to the legendary Nikonos quality. Now, while I don't care why my Amphibicam housings flooded on me (improper construction at the end of the daay, plain and simple), I nonetheless recognize that the marriage of Amphibico and Aquatica allows Amphibico's housings to be matched with Aquatica's extensive collection of ports. I think we can all agree that more choices is better than fewer. The Nauticam housing, which has been met with skepticism, even disregard, by many on this thread, is another such effort that allows the use of more ports than other brands. Why people scoff at such options is beyond me, but again, to each his/her own. We may not have reached that pinnacle of image quality once more, and in fact, you haven't either, for you are using optics that were designed for bigger "sensors" on a smaller sensor where one of its biggest advantages, that of super wide FOV has dissapeared (otherwise, all of us would have ordered a DeepX by now) but if we take off the blinders and recognize that there are other many important factors by which o judge a housing, then we can still go out there and COMPOSE, FRAME and CREATE.

FWIW, I would LOVE to test your CinePort to ascertain your claims about its performance. Let me know what I need to do to get my hands on one.

My other $0.02. If we get another 48 posts, we'll have a dollar....
 
Rudi,
Have you had a chance to use FCPx and the plugin offered (i forget who) by 3rd party? I watched a tutorial on this last month and seems to be limitless possibilities to control images....and keyframing of convergence points etc...All things i liked about Cineform, but now in another package that allows working with raw files.....
 
Johnny Friday said:
Hey Frazier, thanks for the heads up on Athos.....Kat is a very nice lady and the first i dealt with at Heffernan back in i think 2007. Funny, nobody ever said she left since i had often asked for her....Anway, she's working on helping me with a policy that may cover Mexico as well. And she's might chatty at that.....don't see her ever having the machine on telling you to wait 24 to 48hours for a reply.
Click to expand...

Thanks Johnny, also make sure that the policy you get with Kat includes, believe it or not coverage for your included topside gear that sometimes goes aboard a floating vessel, anything you take on the boat and if it gets accidentally washed on the boat, might not be covered. But I'm pretty certain that Kat would tell you that when she speaks with you about your policy. I spoke with her at length about this. I figured she could add coverage for Mexico also, which I will speak with her about if I travel to Guadalupe for filming again this year. Probably only for the duration of my travel to keep the price down.

It's nice to be able to speak with a human being and work out the details, something I found troubling with Heffernan and one of the reasons I cancelled the policy with them this time.

And please guys can we not start up the back and forth about housings, one is better than the other thing, we all know where we are on this, it really does us all no good to hear it again and again, this is why things sometimes goes south on this thread. Not worth hashing over again.

I do appreciate hearing about new housings, new monitors, photos of new things, anyone sharing a video but don't enjoy hearing the back and forth, we know it gets us nowhere and our views are our views regarding housings, ports, sharpness and imaging.

Best to all,
Frazier
 
Indeed Friazier....i have loads of gear and underwater is only a portion....basically i think in the end we want the same...full production gear insurance. Whether it is an underwater shoot, topside or as in most cases that i'm used to...a full gear setup for doco shooting topside and underwater. And as easy policy as possible with worldwide coverage. It is just too silly to begin naming places where you are not covered. That list would be far too long. Why mexico is not covered, but Somalia is or Iraq covered.....Interestingly enough. I pointed out in my conversations with Kat, that my main exposure is and has always been theft and pilferage while in transit via airlines....and it was NEVER in a latin america country or even overseas...it's 100% of the time ALWAYS been in the USA.....Atlanta, Houston and Orlando.....Locks being cut off and cases rifled through and things stolen etc....

As a side-note when i travel and have any number of cases, but a usual travel pkg. for me is 10-12 cases...::
*I pack all of my non-essentials (or easily replaceable items) in my Pelican/Storm hard cases---ones that look like they have valuables
*pack the more expensive gear: heads, R.B gear and Camera gear in m OLD but modified Ice chests (lightweight) and modified with locks, handles and straps: these have NEVER been broken into (yet)...they just look like old ice chests with fish packed in them...but they are very good quality marine coolers i modify for travel and packing
*I leave all camera or lens related cases at home...NEVER do i pack those with ARRI/Oconnor/RED/Sony stamped on the side---just asking for trouble then.

**i think packing gear is an artform of its own and takes a great deal of time as well as experience to look around and borrow ideas from others when you see a good one.
**Additioanally a full and complete list of gear in each and every case i find essential (down to every cable) and spares kit. After a while these cases seem to remain the same and then you can just keep Case 1 or Case 10 on file with its contents and value for customs in your carry on folder....
**I forgot to mention....Photos of cases opened with a digital snapshot/date on them prior to airport, then another AT the airport. Why? Sure helps in when you do have an issue of theft/pilferage at airlines and EVEN THOUGH you signed their waver.....you still can write to them to ask for replacement of what was stolen--if that happens....

***take photos WHEN you have an incident at the airport right there....and then get an official from airlines...to report it and don't bother to argue with them when they tell you that they only cover up to $100usd.....they dont know any better, but file a complete report...and if it's a big theft...call the cops to the airport and file....You'll be surprised how much this all weighs in your corner when filing a claim against the airlines vs. filing your claim with your insurance company and paying for it later in higher premiums....Point is that most airlines will settle with you at either full value or a settled value. REGARDLESS of what you signed....and to carry forward further---try to travel with your press/media pass for not only better luggage rates---BUT to establish you are Media and carrying camera related gear. You then are not just a standard passenger and usually noted as such either on your ticket or luggage voucher.

I think my point here was i just want full coverage insurance wherever i go.....and the standar nuclear disaster war zone exclusions are fine...but naming states, countries, dates and times of travel and if on a thursday during easter week you are not covered is just a waste of insurance.
 
Johnny Friday said:
Rudi,
Have you had a chance to use FCPx and the plugin offered (i forget who) by 3rd party? I watched a tutorial on this last month and seems to be limitless possibilities to control images....and keyframing of convergence points etc...All things i liked about Cineform, but now in another package that allows working with raw files.....
Click to expand...

Johnny,

We talking 3D? Are you referring to Dashwood? If so, I've heard it is even better than Cineform, offering things Cineform never ever dreamed of doing, but alas, as it works on those shiny, silver towers and I am definitely resigned to PCs, I have not had a chance to test it.
 
Rudi Herbert said:
Johnny,

We talking 3D? Are you referring to Dashwood? If so, I've heard it is even better than Cineform, offering things Cineform never ever dreamed of doing, but alas, as it works on those shiny, silver towers and I am definitely resigned to PCs, I have not had a chance to test it.
Click to expand...


Rudi: Yes 3d---Dashwood it is...which SUCKED on fcp7.....but it looks AMAZING now on fcpX....there are some rather very advanced tutorials on youtube showing it in action and i think it has Cineform licked for sure....
 
Dashwood Stereo3D Toolbox... I've been using it since the first beta in FCP7. It was the only game in town back then and a real butt-saver. It's a GREAT tool now. I use it in AfterEffects and Premiere Pro w/ native footage all the time. Geometry correction tools are quite comprehensive. Combine with RE:Vision Effect's StereoMatch plug-in (to balance luma / chroma) and it's a very powerful set of capabilities - right in the NLE.

Also - Tim Dashwood is a solid citizen. Has been very responsive to fixes and feature requests. Likewise for the guys at RE:Vision Effects. Good folks to be in the trenches with.

-- David
 
Well then, as soon as Dashwood's citizen solidity extends to the land of the cheap-and-maligned-but-still-faster-than-anything PC, he can count on yet another customer on me...
 
David Cole said:
Dashwood Stereo3D Toolbox... I've been using it since the first beta in FCP7. It was the only game in town back then and a real butt-saver. It's a GREAT tool now. I use it in AfterEffects and Premiere Pro w/ native footage all the time. Geometry correction tools are quite comprehensive. Combine with RE:Vision Effect's StereoMatch plug-in (to balance luma / chroma) and it's a very powerful set of capabilities - right in the NLE.

Also - Tim Dashwood is a solid citizen. Has been very responsive to fixes and feature requests. Likewise for the guys at RE:Vision Effects. Good folks to be in the trenches with.

-- David
Click to expand...

David: I've not heard of Stereo Match and i'll probably look it up to see if any tutorials...but how does it work with RAW files or does it? Is it a tool you would use instead of manually balancing or would you say it does better than a manual balance by eye & scopes?
 
Rudi Herbert said:
Well then, as soon as Dashwood's citizen solidity extends to the land of the cheap-and-maligned-but-still-faster-than-anything PC, he can count on yet another customer on me...
Click to expand...

I think it does Rudi.....with Premier and AE....That was a plus when i saw it as a download/plugin...works for both...Oh---but PC? ok....better check that one...i guess you already did? no plugins for Pr/AE on PC?
 
Johnny,

All AE plugins are supposed to work with all the formats AE itself can work with, so potentially, yes to RAW. And no, no Dashwood for PC, oh well...
 
Rudi Herbert said:
...FWIW, I would LOVE to test your CinePort to ascertain your claims about its performance. Let me know what I need to do to get my hands on one.....
Click to expand...

I have five: three unmounted, one in Seacam mount and one in titanium face plate compatible with 3Deep. The Seacam mount only accepts narrow lenses...up to about 100mm diameter, the titanium mount fits large lenses, such as Master Prime 14mm.

I can make one available for you for testing, if you like.
 
Hi John

Amazing three days. Vincent is awesome to work with. His knowledge of photography and generosity in sharing his experience is remarkable. My part is just the water scenes. Most of that was shoot on one day with the other two days testing with stunt doubles. When the Bollywood star turned up and we really have to nail all the takes. Took all twelve hours in the sea and sun. Fun fun fun. Deep Epic floats pretty well with a BCD strapped to it. I can't get over how it looks after edit. Epic camera is awesome.

Thanks for posting.

David Cheung
 
Johnny Friday said:
David: I've not heard of Stereo Match and i'll probably look it up to see if any tutorials...but how does it work with RAW files or does it? Is it a tool you would use instead of manually balancing or would you say it does better than a manual balance by eye & scopes?
Click to expand...

It works well with RAW footage - the process benefits greatly from colorspace headroom. Overall, Stereo Match is very capable of repairing exposure and color disparity. As far as I can tell, it's much better at fixing transient occurrences (e.g. an iris bloom in one eye, a quick glare in one eye from polarization disparity, etc) in the middle of a long shot than Speedgrade's auto Match function or Resolves auto tools for stereo. It also has very powerful feature matching that allows for regional tweaking of the matching function. That all said, for Herculean rescue of blown-out color/luma disparity - I still resort to a set of proprietary internal tools from my company. The chief reason is that Stereo Match only alters one eye to match the other. Our tools use a mathematical process (earth mover's distance) to bring both eye views towards a computed NORM. This really helps when the footage is in the weeds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top