Underwater Bubble Blowers User Group Thread NEW

[Jeff Whitehurst]

Yes, they do. Artifical lighting is subjected to exactly the same filtration as ambient as it travels through the same type of water. The only difference is that the artificial light path is from the light source to the subject and back to the camera. This combined distance in combination with the actual water colour absorbtion index will determine the final colour imbalance.

If you are going to film sharks, the combined distance is often more than 5m, which means that you would use at least 2 stops of filtration just for the artificial light (night time) and even more if you mix it with ambient light (daylight). In geen water it may add another two or three stops as the filtration is more intensive than that of pure water. When filming a sea dragon, for example, the combined path will be only between 1m - 2m, so the filtration you would use would be relatively mild, about 1 stop or less.

Ideally, you would like to override most of the ambient light for the foreground subjects. This is easier said than done! I usually use 24,000 lumens of tungsten light and still struggle on a bright day. In practice, the actual light will be a combination of ambient and artificial and, depending on the proportions of those two, you would select a filter that falls in between those two.

Because of all the variability, dependance on the subject distance and depth, one would usually try to find a compromise filter that would get the colour balance closer to nutral in most situations. Then, fine tune it in post. The less you need to adjust in post, the better.

That's what I was thinking, the water quality is going to produce an effect based upon the same factors that effect ambient, but potentially manifest differently within the artificially lit area. I've shot underwater for years, but rarely used lights as the diving I do in Hawaii is relativity shallow and clear. The magic of filters and post correction usually makes the subjects look more colorful than I even see through my mask. The times I've used lights, I didn't use a filter due to the undesirable colors produced in the lit area, but then anything out of the light cone looked a lot different. After reading about the idea of shooting RAW underwater without filters, it just got me thinking about how RAW acquisition might enable a UW shooter using lights to make the transition between foreground and background less obvious. Maybe use a less aggressive filter to help some with the mid/background, but still within correctable range in the foreground artificially lit area? I guess I'll need to get my rig underwater and figure this out for myself, but thanks for your thoughts in the meantime.

 

[Ron Lagerlof]

Hey John

Nice images how does that lens compare with the Duclos 11-16?

Ross, the 10-17 rocks the Tokina 11-16 corner to corner. I found the 11-16 to be very sharp in the center, with considerable fall off on the edges, even with a 2.0 diopter.
The 10-17 is a fisheye zoom, but underwater that works to your advantage, as long as you're not on the far wide end as it tends to make things like sharks look long and skinny. The close focus working distance is also really great. An animal can literally bump the dome port and you can still take its picture - in focus! What I have found with the Epic is that one needs to be much more diligent about focus. With the still cameras and same lens (both Nikon and Canon) the depth of field is far more forgiving than with the RED.

Ron

 

[Ron Lagerlof]

PS - Shot with 11-16. You can see the fish on the outer edges getting distorted.
http://vimeo.com/41601315

 

[Pawel Achtel]

I just saw "The Last Reef" IMAX. My mini review here: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...st-Reef-quot&p=1004655&viewfull=1#post1004655

In a word: disappointing

Anyone else who (hopefully) felt differently?

 

[Michael Hastings]

Quote : " For alumunium is that the same like DSLR housing like seacam, nauticam which is they make from solid with CNC casting or it just tubular alumunium.
For the camera control, is it posible if I want to have some other important button not only basic function. And for the focus do you have manual focus gear or should be all in auto?

I haven't try PVC housing but is it strong enough like alumunium or not? What do you prefer from pvc or alum?
How about the shipping cost? How many kg total weight for all of that." End quote.

This customer was actually asking about an Alexa housing but I get the same basic question all the time. Here is my response (LCD control info added for epic housing):

It is tubular aluminum - same size (9"OD) and thickness (.5") as PVC but aluminum has 8 3" wide flats machined in to reduce weight. PVC at .5" thick is VERY strong. Many are snobbish and demand aluminum but I actually prefer PVC (edit and i think i may have convinced tom hamilton of this after he used one) as it is very easy to adjust balance and buoyancy no matter what combination of lenses, ports, lights, etc. that I use. The pvc requires 5 to 9 pounds of lead ballast to be neutral. (obviously for surf stuff you can easily remove that weight) With aluminum (and this is true of every aluminum or titanium epic housing available) when you use cinema lenses and/or glass ports the front gets very heavy so you have to use buoyancy tubes or floats to make it neutral. All of the metal housings (unless it is very oversized like a converted R1 or film housing) are very close to neutral or slightly negative in their basic configuration so when you add anything negative like lights, battery packs, glass ports, tripod mounts, external monitor, etc you have to add buoyancy which obviously increases size but also more importantly drag.

With PVC I also don't worry about corrosion at all.

As far as camera controls, standard is power/trigger; two controls for rear lcd for user buttons - (white balance, magnify, etc) and two lens controls which provide a rotary friction (not gears but works quite well) for lenses like the ultra primes. We would have to discuss your needs for other lens controls, like a red zoom or whatever. If they are relatively simple like the red zooms, duclos 11-16, ruby 14-24, optitek nikon, etc. - we would provide the alternative at no charge.

The front plate is aluminum with mounting for the threaded Aquatica ports as well as an additional o-ring groove and mounting screw threads for other port options like our flat port extension for larger lenses and anything not covered by the threaded ports.

Expect shipping weight to be about 40 to 60 pounds (18 to 25 kilos)

PVC $5795 alum $7895. Look for a special group buy discount offer this weekend.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

I just saw "The Last Reef" IMAX. My mini review here: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...st-Reef-quot&p=1004655&viewfull=1#post1004655

In a word: disappointing

Anyone else who (hopefully) felt differently?

Wow! Sounds like it was a horrible experience. With so much technically wrong, could it be the projection system was not calibrated properly? I have not seen any other productions from these people although they do have a name in the community, so I find it strange they would have gone out there with what has to have been a sizable budget and underperform so vastly across the entire spectrum...Then again, without a story to follow, even the most technically accomplished images are nothing more than eye candy.

 

[Frazier Nivens]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...some see only the worst in things. I can't imagine the IMAX film being as terrible as that. Depends upon if you are there to enjoy the film or pick it apart. One persons opinion only. I have to go see it now.

 

[paulherrin]

Nice! That's the shot I was hoping you'd show. Love how the orange tones pop out in the CC version. The spot lighting makes the diver look like a hero, dig it!

Thanks, Jeff

Here's another before/after I had on hand... This is a pretty good example of what we had going on for most shots. Remember, we were only doing primary color correction, so nothing fancy - just the basics. In the last shot I shared (diver on the rock face) I barely snuck in a little power window to spotlight the diver after Johnny dozed off on the couch one evening... shh, don't tell I actually had to tone that one down a bit and bring some blue back in to make it feel like we were in the water with him. It might still be pushing the edge (literally...) a little bit, but I think it does alright in motion because as the camera pulls back, more water/blue is introduced between the camera/subject and gives you a sense of depth.

 

[Tom Hamilton]

AV-SSP Mk II

AV-SSP Mk II

Many are snobbish and demand aluminum but I actually prefer PVC (edit and i think i may have convinced tom hamilton of this after he used one)

I was initially worried that PVC wouldn't provide adequate heat dissipation, but after the last job, I am pretty much sold. The Epic never overheated, even after the boat captain accidentally powered the camera up when he bumped into the housing. I didn't find out about that until a couple of hours later, the Epic had been on the whole time, inside the housing, in direct sunlight.

For the kind of work I do, the travel weight savings advantages are very significant, so for me, it's PVC for now.

And since this business is so full of acronyms, I thought of a really slick sounding marketing one, the AV-SSP (AquaVideo-Submersible Sewer Pipe) :thumbsup:

(Just kidding Mike:cheers2:, think I'll save that one for a titanium version)

 

[Johnny Friday]

Here's another before/after I had on hand... This is a pretty good example of what we had going on for most shots. Remember, we were only doing primary color correction, so nothing fancy - just the basics. In the last shot I shared (diver on the rock face) I barely snuck in a little power window to spotlight the diver after Johnny dozed off on the couch one evening... shh, don't tell

Hey...i thought we agreed no Secondaries....no wonder why we took so long....
Actually that before/after is a very good example of a primary color grade and how the RAW data is bland and then can pop after a small bit of work....not really work, but just a few effects applied to make it stand out...Now this may not be a great shot and slightly out of focus at edges etc....and keep in mind the animal is over 6feet away from me and moving away...that said, on a 50" screen it's really sharp around the subject matter and stands out well with the rest of the shots in the sequence.

But as pointed out by another poster: Story drives everything! Just look at what's on tv these days and on the NG channel....not very compelling images if we rate the imagery itself, but some danged good stories--what comes to mind for me is the Alaska Gold mining show....some of the worst imagery, but the story is so compelling that you don't really care. Not that i would suggest we shoot less than beautiful imagery...but each day presents its own set of challenges and based on time/budget/water conditions and what happens that day.....you get what you get and shoot as best you can. We all know that many situations happen only once and hard to get an animal to come back for a second shot or line up for a critical focus--but this is just where talent/years of experience all add up....not that i am advocating i have any of those...but it's easy to see who these folks are when you work with them and understand the challenges of nat. hist. doc shoots. Hats off to you guys!

 

[Frazier Nivens]

Thanks, Jeff

Here's another before/after I had on hand... This is a pretty good example of what we had going on for most shots. Remember, we were only doing primary color correction, so nothing fancy - just the basics. In the last shot I shared (diver on the rock face) I barely snuck in a little power window to spotlight the diver after Johnny dozed off on the couch one evening... shh, don't tell I actually had to tone that one down a bit and bring some blue back in to make it feel like we were in the water with him. It might still be pushing the edge (literally...) a little bit, but I think it does alright in motion because as the camera pulls back, more water/blue is introduced between the camera/subject and gives you a sense of depth.

Nice job on your color....love Galapagos.

 

[Frazier Nivens]

I was initially worried that PVC wouldn't provide adequate heat dissipation, but after the last job, I am pretty much sold. The Epic never overheated, even after the boat captain accidentally powered the camera up when he bumped into the housing. I didn't find out about that until a couple of hours later, the Epic had been on the whole time, inside the housing, in direct sunlight.

For the kind of work I do, the travel weight savings advantages are very significant, so for me, it's PVC for now.

And since this business is so full of acronyms, I thought of a really slick sounding marketing one, the AV-SSP (AquaVideo-Submersible Sewer Pipe) :thumbsup:

(Just kidding Mike:cheers2:, think I'll save that one for a titanium version)

Mike just called me a snob Tom..he hasn't convinced me as of yet. Can't believe he would do that..

 

[Michael Hastings]

Mike just called me a snob Tom..he hasn't convinced me as of yet. Can't believe he would do that..

Frazier, remember I said "many" not all, or even most ;-). (Frazier may be the least snobbish person I know... )

We have your housing (aluminum) pretty well balanced, but you are also using lightweight canon mount and slr lenses with that glass dome and just a small buoyancy tube, but you will need more if you add lights (my lampheads with arm are about neutral, but batteries are going to be negative unless we make the battery case larger than it needs to be so it will be neutral.)

I'm not really trying to talk people out of aluminum if that better fits their comfort zone - gross margin percentages are about the same so I actually make more profit if I sell aluminum. But as I have said here before, I made a decision many years ago to sell the steak NOT the "sizzle" so I have always tried to give my customers options and recommend the most appropriate for their needs and often that boils down to maximizing "bang for the buck". (maybe not the most profitable business strategy, but I sleep pretty well at night)

Unless you have unlimited budget, one should analyze whether it might be better to get PVC and save the $2k that could be better spent on some good lights, better lenses, or a trip to Wakatobi - which could actually enhance their photography.

 

[Jeff Whitehurst]

Really nice work, Paul. I'm dying to get my rig underwater, but seeing your shots and learning about your UW RED workflow is really inspiring me during the wait. I had a feeling there was a power window involved in that diver shot, but only because we are studying it here. The on screen effect, I think, simulates one of those moments underwater when the clouds align topside and sends a shaft of light into the deep. It enforces his pose against the rocks and makes to kind of look like in a movie where a character is in the shadows and car headlights pass by, revealing his position. Anyway, it looks great and matches nicely with the whale shark shot. Not sure if they are part of the same sequence, but seeing the two already started building the story in my mind. Thanks for sharing, can't wait to see it all in motion!

Thanks, Jeff

Here's another before/after I had on hand... This is a pretty good example of what we had going on for most shots. Remember, we were only doing primary color correction, so nothing fancy - just the basics. In the last shot I shared (diver on the rock face) I barely snuck in a little power window to spotlight the diver after Johnny dozed off on the couch one evening... shh, don't tell I actually had to tone that one down a bit and bring some blue back in to make it feel like we were in the water with him. It might still be pushing the edge (literally...) a little bit, but I think it does alright in motion because as the camera pulls back, more water/blue is introduced between the camera/subject and gives you a sense of depth.

 

[Jeff Whitehurst]

PS - Shot with 11-16. You can see the fish on the outer edges getting distorted.
http://vimeo.com/41601315

Hey Ron, a few quick questions. Was this clip shot with a diopter (+2)? Also, interested in your thoughts on the Tokina 10-17. I already own the 11-16, but the barrel distortion I've experienced topside has me worried about relying on it UW once I get my housing. I've seen the 10-17 mentioned favorably in the UW discussions frequently, but didn't consider it much due to the speed rating. Thanks for sharing your footage, all your shots look great. It really helps to see actual results. BTW, what was lens this clip made with? http://vimeo.com/41213529 Man, I really hope I get to dive that place someday! Cheers, Jeff

 

[Jon Shaw]

I'm another vote for the Tokina 10-17 works really well and the client was super happy with the results.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...some see only the worst in things. I can't imagine the IMAX film being as terrible as that. Depends upon if you are there to enjoy the film or pick it apart. One persons opinion only. I have to go see it now.

I went there to enjoy the evening, totally enthusiastic and open minded. In fact, I really wanted the film to look great as I was there with like-minded friends and having good time. I really hope you (or anyone) feel differently and like the film. I really do.

Rudi, I wish it was the projection system to blame, but even forgetting all technical aspects, it was just a poor film with no story, terrible editing, shaky camera, bad framing and focus being in the wrong place most of the time (as opposed to the entire image being soft). The soundtrack was big (and loud) but images did not support it and were completely disjoint to my taste.

I hope someone liked the film and offers a different opinion.

 

[George Evatt]

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

 

[Tom Hamilton]

I know this subject has been addressed before, just wanted to solicit the collective thoughts here, the folks who make a living doing this stuff.

All of this discussion concerning color correction, the absence of red at depth, the resultant red channel noise, how to solve for that, fascinating stuff.

But what are we trying to do here?

The underwater world is a blue-green place, that is what it looks like to the human eye. Why are we trying to change that? Have a look at the French/Disney production narrated by Pierce Brosnan, it stays absolutely true to those color ranges. And it works, amazingly. At least to my eye.

In lighting it all up with colors that don't naturally exist down there, are we not creating artificial eye-candy? An unspoken lie, for easy public consumption and potential profit?

Is that what our job is?

 

[Johnny Friday]

Tom,
I'd say this is no different than any film or doc. All artistic vision. And of course we are not always the best judge of what our audience will like....take for example NG Migrations or the latest one Wild Americas.....they took imagery and made it pleasing to the eye---yes, not always what is real....i recall one sequence: Jellyfish lake where colors were dark green or light green depending on tides seeping into the lake....NG colored it to what i think was very pleasing and looked great. Was it the real color? no. But it was what most non diving audiences expect of water--blue/clear etc....and of course all works form story....throw in a scene going around Cape horn and we envision black, stormy seas....i was there not long ago and saw some beautiful conditions...i think much of this is perception and all the more reason to have creative control---which few if any of us have when working for a production.....A LA Natural is nice---however lest we forget this is a profit making business that depends on what the audience wants to see....
...that's what i've seen from my few years in this biz. And others make those decisions all the time....so, you want to sell a stock image of fish in green water and compete against others that have done some work in post and made it look completely different and blue/clear etc....i think we know which will usually sell.