The Gentleman's Underwater Bubble Blower Thread

[Michael Maes]

Well, I can't say I have tried any other red housings, but I do like mine. I have owned Gates, Amphibico and Sealux over the last 10 years for video housings; and Subal, Nexus, Aquatica, Nauticam for stills.

This is my 6th Nauticam housing, so as a user I probably have more working stock than most dealers!

Specific to the Rossa, The vacuum pump being powered by a low pressure inflator is great, although for my trip to Tonga later in the year I am improvising with a bicycle pump.

The control layout is awesome, i'm about 10 hours in underwater and I don't miss the touchscreen at all. I have all the port options already, and my macro focus gears are cross compatible. Which ended up giving me more savings.

So far I have the following lenses for underwater with focus/zoom gears:

100mm L (with or without teleconverters)
60mm EF-S
16-35mm L
10-17mm Tokina
8-15mm L

I also have the MP-E 65mm which maybe I'll give a crack on some inverts later in the week.

Lighting this stuff at F/16 and over isn't so easy as all the powerful lights I have are wide beam, I use sola 4000's and 1200's. I'll post some high fps soon, i have only noticed flicker in a couple of shots.

I edit with a new iMac and I can only view realtime at 1/8th res, which sucks. I'm considering to get a red-rocket via thunderbolt whilst I wait for the new mac-pro.

My advise Simon: (keep) wait(ing) for the new Mac Pro and New RED ROCKET. Don't invest in intermediate solutions anymore.
Either the new Mac Pro will be released between this and December, either it won't be released and you go PC.
As you have the Epic, you might opt for Dragon at a certain point. So don't buy the current RED ROCKET anymore.
If you decide to stay with Mysterium-X, by that time you will be able to buy current RED ROCKETs on the resale market.
If the Mac Pro is as powerful as they "suggest", you won't even need a RR card.

The one thing about the ROSSA which appeals to me is the (nearly) complete interchangeability with their DSLR systems (ports, extensions, ...).
Another thing is the multiple port-options specific for a lens.
Other manufacturers have one flat-port and one dome, which is NOT ideal for all lenses.
There is even one manufacturer which doesn't use any port at all.... huh Pawel :-D

Anyways: every housing has its advantages and its disadvantages!

 

[Rudi Herbert]

I no longer think that the grey-magenta hue and loss of contrast of the MX sensor is normal or desired behaviour. I now believe it is a serious problem in any shooting conditions. On land and underwater. I think it is a serious design fault of MX sensor.

Yeah, well, there you have it, pretty much what I've been harping on for a long while now. While I don't have any specific evidence as you have found, I do have a no less valuable resource: my eyes, sharpened and trained by too many years of shooting and grading anything from 8mm to IMAX film and any flavor of digital in between. And yes, subjectively but no less clearly, I have arrived at the same conclusion. Which sucks. Big time. Because all if us in this forum have made a considerable investment of time, resources and commitment to the RED brand but the return on that investment is not qualitatively speaking on the same level. You know, when Michael's camera problem came up, we took the time to talk to RED HQ people AT LENGTH but as Michael said, we were condescended upon and given lectures about the mechanics of light transmission and color loss in water, something we knew better than those trying to teach it to us. And so, here we stand now, with more and more users reporting the problem, and without a clear idea of whether Dragon will fix this problem or not. If it doesn't, as many of us fear it won't, then what???

 

[Pawel Achtel]

.... You know, when Michael's camera problem came up, we took the time to talk to RED HQ people AT LENGTH but as Michael said, we were condescended upon and given lectures about the mechanics of light transmission and color loss in water, something we knew better than those trying to teach it to us. And so, here we stand now, with more and more users reporting the problem, and without a clear idea of whether Dragon will fix this problem or not. If it doesn't, as many of us fear it won't, then what???

Ahhh, that's your problem right there. Michael is usually wrong on most things that's why they didn't listen to him. Just kidding.

Colour science can be deceptive. One time you think certain quentum efficiency response is correct and desired, then you find an argument that contradicts it.

I have no idea if Dragon is going to have the same problem. One small piece of evidence suggests that it may suffer from the same problem, but I'm just guessing here.

As often the case, prevention is better than cure. The sensor modification in production is relatively simple (and doesn't cost anything more in production). The fix afterwards is not simple or cheap. I have spent now far more than Dragon upgrade on investgating and finding a fix. I have requested a Dragon for testing and I had not received reply from RED. If you convince them I should get one prior to release, I can advise if the problem remains (actually measure and quantify how good or bad it is). The point is that this fault can be easily fixed during sensor manufacturing process. It is much harder to undo it.

Best fishes from freezn' Tazzie.

 

[Michael Maes]

Ahhh, that's your problem right there. Michael is usually wrong on most things that's why they didn't listen to him. Just kidding.

Colour science can be deceptive. One time you think certain quentum efficiency response is correct and desired, then you find an argument that contradicts it.

I have no idea if Dragon is going to have the same problem. One small piece of evidence suggests that it may suffer from the same problem, but I'm just guessing here.

As often the case, prevention is better than cure. The sensor modification in production is relatively simple (and doesn't cost anything more in production). The fix afterwards is not simple or cheap. I have spent now far more than Dragon upgrade on investgating and finding a fix. I have requested a Dragon for testing and I had not received reply from RED. If you convince them I should get one prior to release, I can advise if the problem remains (actually measure and quantify how good or bad it is). The point is that this fault can be easily fixed during sensor manufacturing process. It is much harder to undo it.

Best fishes from freezn' Tazzie.

Rudi was talking about me Pawel, not your 'friend' Michael.
yes, your picture is, alas, very familiar to me :-(
do you really think RED will ever reply to you about Dragon?
they treated us like imbicil babies when we proved them my Epic screwed up.
their basic reply was the results are as expected, normal, and, if I remember correctly, it is not designed to film underwater.
I think the ONLY way we might get their attention is by writing them together, signed by 'all' of us, including the big names like Howard, Hugh, Bob, ...

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Pawel,

I'm at a loss reading your reply. While I agree that quantifying subjective findings is a very difficult and complex process, I think that once you have some evidence to back up your findings, then the way to go is to share it, not to bury it. You'd be doing the community at large a disservice, and yourself in particular more so. Don't you sell a line of products based specifically on the Epic camera, something that took you years to design, test and produce? While titanium and Nikon optics may be the defining elements of your product, the base is still the camera that records the images, and if you agree that said camera is seriously deficient for underwater work, then how do you expect to be successful in business?

I don't think RED is the best camera out there in one single department (that unabashed militant loyalty is best left for Jim and his people), but it IS the best all around package by a large margin. And I think many of us here share the same sentiment which is why we have put our eggs in the RED basket. But we have a right to expect a RED camera to perform in no much worse of a manner underwater than other cameras do, and that is not happening right now. In fact, resolution aside, the Epic is being soundly beaten not only by the R1 but by all the Sony F flavors, as well as its arch-nemesis, the Alexa. Did you know that in the film making circles in Hollywood the Alexa has, once again, become the go-to camera for underwater given that it produces "the best colors out there"? Look at all the stuff Pete Zuccarini is doing, he seems to be called upon for every underwater scene on every Hollywood production out there, and he shoots Alexa religiously, without any regard for the humongous housings he has to carry, because after all, what matters most underwater is COLOR. But hey, even prosumer cameras exhibit better colors than the Epic. This is quite frankly unacceptable to me and I would assume it should be even more so to people at RED. Because although the attitude of the RED personnel may be downright infuriating at times, I have to believe that at heart, they want to produce the best camera possible. And we have stumbled upon a serious flaw of their design, a flaw that manifests itself SEVERELY underwater but that ALSO has to play a part in image quality on land.

So, if we were to provide them with as much information as possible and make a serious case, especially with quantifiable scientific data as you have found, then perhaps they will feel compelled to pay more attention to this issue? Because if we fail to engage RED, then what is the alternative really?

 

[Tom Hamilton]

"The camera is not designed for underwater use"

I think, quite simply, that says it all, no real interest on Red's part in acknowledging a problem exists, let alone addressing it. We are a very small community in the grander scheme of things, not much financial incentive for them. I PM'd Graeme about it some time ago to determine if there was even an awareness, so far , crickets.

But yes, very much agree with Rudi, if you could clarify the exact nature of the problem, your proposed fix, Pawel, then we might all consider getting behind you to make something happen.

Remember though, I'm a diver, you'll have to speak slowly.

 

[Jon Shaw]

Had an interesting RAW workshop with Geoff Boyle FKBS on Friday night, now he obviously has upset a fair few manufacturers along the way and he opening expressed that and to be honest he was pretty fair at pulling each camera apart.... anyway I was discussing issues with the MX sensor underwater and he wasn't surprised, he also has seen some grabs from Dragon and it is a completely different chip and completely new design. He explained that the MX chip was never designed as a imaging chip it and had to be worked very hard to get a decent picture. Fingers crossed... Dragon works well.... On another note, has anyone here shot Alexa underwater at depth, I know George Evatt has done some work with Alexa but not sure how much and whether at any depth. It would be interesting to see whether it suffers the same issues.... what about the F55, the FS100 underwater looks awful? Maybe it is unfortunately a fact of a single sensor with de-bayering compared to using 3 chips..... what about a 3 chip S35 camera.... the imaging block would be pretty big

 

[Pawel Achtel]

I must say I have thought twice about replying to this thread....

Hugh, I think I owe you and everyone a proper response to your post. I was on a shoot and didn't quite have the time to respond properly.

1) Not true. The ports were strong enough as was the housing (would it be a huge surprise to you that these things had been calculated?) It was the smaller port that blew from a failure in machining, that small concussion then blew the larger port.

Other than two articles stating to the contrary, I was basing my assumptions on what Anthony Geffen said here http://www.onsight.co.uk/press.php?id=55

"No-one knew how the housing would react at that depth with that weight - and we reached its limits," says Geffen.

I have no reason to disbelieve either you or Anthony Geffen, but I think having consistent story would help how it is perceived out in the public.

Either way, I'm curious what the calculated depth limit was, how it was calculated and how were you able to tell which port broke first. I think everyone here would like to know more as we are not familiar with the housing.

2) There were no cameras in the housing at the time. The details in the article are not entirely accurate.

Again, I think you should work out a consistent story with your production colleagues. It shouldn't be too hard to establish whether the cameras were or weren't inside when the housing failed and stick with that story. I would suggest raising this point with Antony Geffen and others that made comments contradicting your version of the story. You are much better correcting the story at the source. We are just reading it and interpreting accordingly.

3) There was testing before it went south, not much, given the time frame, but there was testing. It was a calculated risk, in the 'either go and try and maybe fail or don't do it at all' category. SG is sub-antarctic, to be strictly accurate.

Again, according to what Anthony Geffen said the housing was not tested at depth, which means the housing was not even submerged to a working depth before the production shoot in South Georgia. Your statement is much more vague than what Anthony Geffen said as you do not qualify exactly what kind of testing was or wasn't done. My point related to what Anthony Geffen said. And, I do stand by my assessment of such practice, especially on a large budget production like this. (without being personal) I do believe it was silly not to do depth test.

4) I don't know how you come up with this figure. Firstly the Quasar is about three times the size of the Neutron so they cant really be put in the same weight category. Secondly although R1's were the primary topside camera (on a Quasar), in the underwater housing SI2K's were used on a Neutron beam splitter with a Cinedeck. A Red One one in a Gates was also used in the latter stages, alongside the 3D housing.

I may have misinterpreted the following statement as it doesn't clearly say what rig was 560kg. I assumed it was the underwater rig , which may be incorrect:

"The logistics also necessitated the adaptation of the camera system since each day they had to carry the 560kg rig off the boat and over some very tough terrain." (http://www.onsight.co.uk/press.php?id=55 )

How heavy was the 3D underwater rig then? What rig was 560kg?

5) It may be educated but clearly not well informed and not from anyone who had any first hand knowledge of the shoot.

Agreed. It is just that those "informed" with first hand knowledge seem to contradict each other

6) About time.

Why? I disagree with Mike Hastings most strongly about incorrect factual information and assumptions that he made about my housings. I thought it was only fair to correct it. The only matter of opinion that we seem to disagree on is the angle of view for underwater cinematography. Michael thinks 75 degrees is way too narrow and limiting for underwater shooting. He prefers angles ~120 degrees or so. I prefer 75 ~ 90 degrees. But, this is a matter of personal opinion, style and preference. You seemed to be happy shooting with flat port, which limits the angle of view to about 40 degrees if you want to keep the image at high definition quality. Just saying.

There is nothing wrong having different opinions, express them freely and debating them.

7) Well, I've likely been called worse by people who are far more important to me than you. I will say this though, its a small world, especially in underwater film making, and making derogatory statements like that on a public forum are silly at best and hardly ingratiates you with working professionals (who are potential customers, right?).

I haven't called you anything. You implied this. I didn't even know and I still don't know who was responsible for what was described in the media. But, a "bunch of drongos" seems very fitting term to the picture created by all those articles that the production team has published. Nothing personal, but if (and this is if) the production team had no idea whether the housing would be fit for purpose and if they didn't test it at depth on what appears to be a multi-million dollar production for a flagship BBC film, I think it was pretty funny and pretty silly thing to do.

The purpose of this forum (in my mind) is to openly share the good, the bad and the ugly and discuss it. As long as it is not personal (which my post wasn't), it should serve the community to learn about the pitfalls of poor or lack of adequate preparations.

As I said, no personal remarks were intended, but when discussing all silly things that we (me included) have done on our shoots, the story published by your production team seemed to top the charts. I think you were reading too much from my comments.

the point is, you use what you have available and if its not available then build it, be inventive. This is a creative industry after all, if it works great and if it doesnt then adapt and change, but at the very least try.

I could not agree more on your last point. The reason DeepX and 3Deep were created was because I was not happy with what was (and still is) available.

Pawel,

I'm at a loss reading your reply. While I agree that quantifying subjective findings is a very difficult and complex process, I think that once you have some evidence to back up your findings, then the way to go is to share it, not to bury it. You'd be doing the community at large a disservice, and yourself in particular more so. Don't you sell a line of products based specifically on the Epic camera, something that took you years to design, test and produce? While titanium and Nikon optics may be the defining elements of your product, the base is still the camera that records the images, and if you agree that said camera is seriously deficient for underwater work, then how do you expect to be successful in business?

Rudi, if you spent 20 grand on something, would you share it with me?

I am considering offering a solution to our customers. We are still doing testing and evaluating different solutions as some work better than others. I will let everyone know when we are done.

I'm also happy to work with RED on this issue, I sent them a message some time ago and I look forward to their response.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Had an interesting RAW workshop with Geoff Boyle ...

Interesting.

Just so everyne knows, I can test any camera without taking it underwater within about 1 hour. We can offer this as a service, if required.

...what about a 3 chip S35 camera.... the imaging block would be pretty big

Too difficult to align them. And, yes too big for the PL back flange distance. There is not enough space between the sensor (image plane) and the lens.

 

[Michael Hastings]

...what about the F55, the FS100 underwater looks awful? Maybe it is unfortunately a fact of a single sensor with de-bayering compared to using 3 chips..... what about a 3 chip S35 camera.... the imaging block would be pretty big

Not sure we need a 3 chip s35 camera - may be better off with a 3 chip 2/3" sensor with 4, 5, or 6K pixels - pretty easily doable with the density available these days.

In thinking about it, first realize that dragon sensor went to a smaller pixel size to get 6K on current APS-M size chip (and probably more importantly 5K on S35 size crop to make current cinema lenses like Ultras, Masterprimes, etc. work at 5K). Yet it appears to be offering in the neighborhood ofi iso 2000 and 15 stops DR, so seems likely that
Iso 400-800 and 13-14 stops DR might be possible now with 4K pixels on a 2/3" chip. (and with no bayer pattern issues 4K 3-chip could give true 4K).


Beyond the sensitivity benefits, the other big reason for S35 size is shallow depth of field. Shallow DOF isn't really very useful underwater and normally is more of a hindrance than a help. And I believe Pawel has pointed out that the smaller sensor sizes ameliorate some of the issues with dome ports. A 3-chip 4K F55 style camera would be VERY attractive to me - and I think it is doable.

I fully expect to see 4K 3chip cameras soon, since the shallow depth of field S35 chips are really impractical for the long distance shots used in sports and other live events - they can use all of the depth of field they can get. (ANd same goes for a LOT of abovewater nature and documentary work as well). Not to mention the ridiculously large lenses that would be required to get the same kind of zoom range we see used on a typical football or baseball game. Yet these kind of events (superbowl for example) are typically major drivers for adoption of new technology in TVs.

Current lenses would probably do fairly well, and upgraded true 4K designs wouldn't be far down the road.

 

[Hugh Miller]

To avoid potential confusion I have edited my post #1159 to include the following statement.

That there is NO CONNECTION IN ANYWAY (and that includes me, I had nothing to do with the design of either housing, I just happened to have been an operator on both) between the 3D housing used on the Penguin shoot (a custom rapidly produced housing made in the UK) and any Gates product (such as the Gates Deep Atom). I mentioned the Gates Deep Atom in the above paragraph only as a counter point to my prior experiences with 3D housings!

Its very important to me that this is understood

The Gates Deep Atom is an extraordinary rig and I cant wait for the films that have been shot on it to be released because frankly I cant wait to see them.


Thanks

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Not sure we need a 3 chip s35 camera - may be better off with a 3 chip 2/3" sensor with 4, 5, or 6K pixels - pretty easily doable with the density available these days....

For airy disc size 2µm (which you want to be smaller than pixel size in a 3-chip camera), the lens aperture would need to be larger than f/1.4. Any smaller aperture and your resolution would be diffraction limited, which means you would not be actually getting 4k despite the pixel count. Laws of physics, my friend.

Now, how practical would it be to shoot at f/1.4 or larger through a dome port, I don't know. I haven't done the calculations, but my gut feel tells me that despite small sensor size, the image plane curvature would be large enough to affect the edge sharpness with the super-thin DOF of f/1.4 or wider. Not to mention focusing problems at f/1.4.

So happy to disagree with you again, Mike

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Pawel,

Yes, but you do not need to shoot at the maximum aperture at all times to get a usable image or to keep all of your resolution. The same principle dictates that 1/2" 1080p 3 chip arrays must have an F 1.9 max aperture but you don't have to shoot at it all the time to get proper images. So while you're right, Mike's idea has merit and it could be a solution, albeit with all the problems that 3 chip arrays bring with them, despite their main advantage, which is very accurate color rendition. I for one do not want to go back to B4 lenses, they were and still are, very large and VERY expensive, so while Digiprimes and the like are truly excellent optics, thanks but no thanks.

I think the solution has to reside on a design that does not interpolate or "guess" colors as Bayer does. Sony's striped design is a good approach, wich was used on the F35 to great effect (the camera has a ~ 5K sensor to yield a 1080p image) and even better on the F65, where an 8K sensor is used to produce a 4K image. Besides "real" resolution gains, we also get 3 pixels yielding colorimetry information for one single pixel in the final image. And I always felt the way to go would be a Foveon style sensor, which has all the benefits of a 3 chip design without any of the disadvantages. It is easier and cheaper to go the Bayer way I know, but in terms of color accuracy, Bayer cannot compare to Foveon or CCD, never did, never will. And yes, the Epic makes breathtaking images on land, but it seriously under performs underwater, so imagine how much better it would do on land if it managed to yield proper colors underwater.

Lastly Pawel, if you spent $20K to crack the Epic's problem, and all you are is worried about sharing with your fellow shooters without the guarantee of financial remuneration, then sell your solution to Jim, I'm sure he'll be happy to pay you many times over your investment if it means even a slight improvement for his camera. That is, if you truly have a solution at hand. You went from not ever seeing the problem on your Epics, to suddenly discovering it, to figuring out it was a result of the sensor being too good, to then announcing that it was due to a severe flaw in sensor design, all that in a couple of weeks. So while your undeniable technical acumen is appreciated (albeit at the cost of what can be best described as a difficult personality), the ultimate impact of your discoveries for the community at large is so hard to quantify that I find the joy that should arise from your solution akin to that of when Openheimer and co. finally cracked the path to the atom bomb...

 

[Michael Hastings]

For airy disc size 2µm (which you want to be smaller than pixel size in a 3-chip camera), the lens aperture would need to be larger than f/1.4. Any smaller aperture and your resolution would be diffraction limited, which means you would not be actually getting 4k despite the pixel count. Laws of physics, my friend.

Now, how practical would it be to shoot at f/1.4 or larger through a dome port, I don't know. I haven't done the calculations, but my gut feel tells me that despite small sensor size, the image plane curvature would be large enough to affect the edge sharpness with the super-thin DOF of f/1.4 or wider. Not to mention focusing problems at f/1.4.

So happy to disagree with you again, Mike

You got me there I was just thinking off the cuff.

I fully admit that I haven't considered diffraction limiting all that much up until now - other than thinking that it is a good idea not to shoot the Epic/Red1 at higher than F8/F11, but if I'm using the same basic numbers that you are (and a quick look at some of the online calculators) doesn't that also imply that we are seeing diffraction limiting on the MysteriumX at F4-F5.6 and on dragon sensor at somewhere between f2.8 and f4?

Fu.. it, I think it's time to dig out my old SD 520,000 pixel Ikegami Editcam - It had everything I ever wanted in a camera (that great Ikegami image, flawless time-lapse, flawless prerecord, hard disk recording on cheap drives, good ergonomics, nice motorized zoom, focus, iris, everything worked, genlock, bncs, nice remote) - except resolution. And now I find with crappy dome ports, bayer sensors, whacky color science and diffraction limiting I haven't gained anything .... just kidding but you all get my point - sometimes this sh.t gives you a headache :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Mike,

Yeah I hear you. In fact, I will never ditch my RED cameras for land work, but if this trend continues underwater, I am actually wondering how well an S35 sized 1080p sensor would do upscaled to 4K. There are some algorithms already in the works to upscale HD to UHD, and if any of those works relatively well, then an oversampled sensor like the F35 might not look too bad at 4K, and those cameras are already going for below $8K out there. Of course, this is all hypothetical but you never know....

 

[Pawel Achtel]

...doesn't that also imply that we are seeing diffraction limiting on the MysteriumX at F4-F5.6 and on dragon sensor at somewhere between f2.8 and f4?

Yes and no. Depends on the point light spread and that depends whether it is Bayer CMOS (minimum 4 -pixel light spread) or if it is 3-chip, which can have much narrower light spread. You were talking about 3-chip, so you need to half the size of Airy disc used in calculationsfor CMOS Bayer pattern sensor.

Mike,

Yeah I hear you. In fact, I will never ditch my RED cameras for land work, but if this trend continues underwater, I am actually wondering how well an S35 sized 1080p sensor would do upscaled to 4K. There are some algorithms already in the works to upscale HD to UHD, and if any of those works relatively well, then an oversampled sensor like the F35 might not look too bad at 4K, and those cameras are already going for below $8K out there. Of course, this is all hypothetical but you never know....

Upscaling only works well if you have good micro contrast and are able to resolve right to Nyquist and beyond. Example of that can be this "true" 8k underwater frame grab: http://www.flickr.com/photos/achtel/8839311952/

If MTF is zero well before the Nyquist, then there is nothing you can do to put the information back in. What I'm saying is that you would be back to underwater optics (dome port, etc...) and its limitations.

I haven't tested the F35 and can't say how good or bad it is in handling this specific problem. The control (background frame) in my picture was shot with a Canon DSLR camera. There was not even detectable amount of contamination in Canon, where the MX sensor was pretty much "off the scale": at least 8 stops beyond where I would want it to be

 

[Pawel Achtel]

I see absolutely nothing wrong to disagree with or debate anyone who thinks differently. We discuss underwater film making, not personalities. It's OK to be wrong or ask "silly" questions. This is the whole purpose of this board. I don't have all the answers. I learn too.

Insincere flattery and coverup of facts irritate me. It doesn't matter how famous the poster may be or what his credits are. It's what you know, not who you know.

And, if I don't like the picture, a housing, a camera, lens, whatever - I will say so openly. I don't care if it hurts someone's ego because the debate is not about that.

I think many posters on this thread should learn to distinguish disagreement from disrespect.

I love to disagree with Mike and Rudi, because they often make good points, for which I respect them.

 

[Martin Weiss]

Please refrain from making this personal, gentlemen.

Thank thee.

 

[Jarred Land]

Hey guys.. sorry for showing up late to the party.

I was emailed mumblings of a problem last month... but never any details surrounding the issue or even what the issue was, just a request that If you give me free Dragon upgrades to my cameras and tell me a whole bunch of confidential info I will tell you what the problem is and we have a fix for it and maybe for Dragon too.

And then again tonight I received the same request but a little more forceful which made me come search for this thread.

We want to fix this.. and we would love you guys to help tell us what the problem is so we can fix it. I don't really understand the whole " fuck you pay me " philosophy..... thats not the way this small community should work.

This really sucks... because if someone came to us and said " hey here is a serious problem we are having, and look, here is the solution.. we probably would of given them much more than a Dragon upgrade to be helping us out. Much more.

You have my ear now, and you have Graemes. Let us know what the problem is, we will do our best to fix it. If you can help us fix it.. then help us fix it. Or don't and just let us muck about and try to figure it out ourselves.

Or if whatever this problem is has a solution that is some sort of coating or glass or part that you have some invention on.. then make it into a product. I am sure you will do well.

At any rate.. all we want you guys to be able to take better pictures.. A huge part of our new reel is dedicated to underwater cinematography and we love what you guys do.

If someone wants to tell us what the problem is without holding us hostage.. please, we are at your service.

 

[Jean Bruneau]

Hey guys.. sorry for showing up late to the party.

I was emailed mumblings of a problem last month... but never any details surrounding the issue or even what the issue was, just a request that If you give me free Dragon upgrades to my cameras and tell me a whole bunch of confidential info I will tell you what the problem is and we have a fix for it and maybe for Dragon too.

And then again tonight I received the same request but a little more forceful which made me come search for this thread.

We want to fix this.. and we would love you guys to help tell us what the problem is so we can fix it. I don't really understand the whole " fuck you pay me " philosophy..... thats not the way this small community should work.

This really sucks... because if someone came to us and said " hey here is a serious problem we are having, and look, here is the solution.. we probably would of given them much more than a Dragon upgrade to be helping us out. Much more.

You have my ear now, and you have Graemes. Let us know what the problem is, we will do our best to fix it. If you can help us fix it.. then help us fix it. Or don't and just let us muck about and try to figure it out ourselves.

Or if whatever this problem is has a solution that is some sort of coating or glass or part that you have some invention on.. then make it into a product. I am sure you will do well.

At any rate.. all we want you guys to be able to take better pictures.. A huge part of our new reel is dedicated to underwater cinematography and we love what you guys do.

If someone wants to tell us what the problem is without holding us hostage.. please, we are at your service.

Amen!