Underwater Bubble Blowers User Group Thread NEW

[Mark_Thorpe]

Will,
Save yourself a lot of hassle and just prep your GoPro's directly in front of an AC unit. We drive into the interior of Bali to shoot Canyoning with GoPro's and the prep in the vehicle sees us turn the AC on full blast with the GoPro's open, filling the casing with dry air and have never had a problem. Also lived in Micronesia and Palau for seven years. Always prepped gear in an AC environment and again never had a problem.

For dome ports if you are also trying split shots in and out of water a surf photography secret is to rub a freshly cut raw potato slice on the dome. Something to do with the starch makes the water instantly run off leaving no droplets.

Cheers,
Mark.

PS Pawel, I think you need to replace your glasses with a diving mask. If that jellyfish were any softer it would be renamed a 'lesser spotted soft jellyfish'.

 

[Will Keir]

Pawel, Johnny, Mark... great advice thanks for the tips, I appreciate you guys taking the time on my "test" underwater learning sessions before purchasing a epic housing.

Mark, on AC prep how long do you get before fog builds, couple hours, 4, 8? I like having the LCD to frame my shots but it's heat is more than likely causing fog.

 

[Will Keir]

As for filters--you can also add gels to back of your lens.

Do they make a streak filter gel?

 

[Will Keir]

As Jim Jannard or Jarred said: RED cameras will separate men from the boys.

You guys have a lot of heated debates, are all divers this lively? To get in some of the water I've seen Johnny enter, you gotta have balls, even if they are little boy balls, they are HUGE.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

...As for filters--you can also add gels to back of your lens.

Anything that you put behind the lens will most likely affect the back focus distance, in particular you can expect large back focus shift with wide angle lenses of retrofocus design. It may explain why your footage is a bit soft

 

[Will Keir]

You are a funny character, Pawel VS the World.

It may explain why your footage is a bit soft

 

[Pawel Achtel]

You are a funny character, Pawel VS the World.

My comments are usually well-intended. Rather than calling a soft, poor contrast image an "artistic choice", I think it would be far more helpful to find the reasons and improve upon it. Make a better picture. Learn. Grow up. Accept well placed criticism. Further your skills.

There is nothing antagonistic about it. I guess the Internet does not convey all the emotions through smilies

I can make him a disservice, be a "nice guy" and say something opposite to what I really think. Some posters tend to do this a lot here.

 

[Johnny Friday]

This taken with the old (known to be soft) 18-50
....and again, you will find corners soft as pointed out by previous poster. But i'm ok with it being soft as my tools can only go so far and making best use of them is all i can do. But thank you again for your constructive criticism Pawel.

[/url] RED 18-50 PL by RedCineUnderwater, on Flickr[/IMG]

 

[Rudi Herbert]

On the subject of HDCAM,

Yes, it is a choice that still very much suits the underwater medium. I hate how much care and constant fiddling focus requires with the RED or EPIC. Honestly, most of what we do in the natural history confines does leave us with very little time to check focus before every shot, and I'm sure that, like myself, many here have lost a great shot that only ephemerally passed in front of our lens, while we were fiddling with the focus knob. It is infuriating, and one of those things that comes with a large sensor. Now, a 2/3" sensor will take away a lot of those problems, produce a great 1080p image and allow more time shooting and composing, instead of focusing. That is why I try to the bitter end, NOT to use RED underwater, however I love that camera. Interestingly, and having owned two F900s myself, I find that the little EX-1 allows for even better results, when used with a Gates/Fathom combo. The 1/2" sensor really lets you "snap" focus instantly, and actually, all I do is set focus at the start of the dive and then keep it on manual, where given the sensor size and the FOV of the Fathom lens, it will focus on anything from 1.7 ft to infinity at all times, so long as you keep the aperture no wider than 2.4, which is remarkable. The EX-1 has the same image tweak menus as the F-900, and I use mine with an Atomos Samurai, recording ProRes HQ 422 at 10 bit, which greatly surpasses the image quality of the HDCAM tape format of the better F-900 camera. I have even done the unthinkable in very clean water and left the focus on auto with nary a problem. For me, if I need/want/have to shoot in anything else than RED, then this EX-1/Gates/Fathom combo produces amazing images in a package that actually lets you spend your time composing and being creative.

Then again, if you need images that will allow the most creative choices in post and will pop with brilliant detail at large screen sizes, RED is the only way to go. All that remains now, is for someone to design an integrated, water corrected optic, based on a very wide lens, that will allow for a much more predictable and effective focus scale. Hopefully, we're not too far from that. And did I mention something that yields more than 75 deg on the EPIC? I felt the video posted by David was, indeed, beautiful, but it gave me a very claustrophobic feel with how narrow the perspective was, and dare I say, even disturbing, given the size of the subjects vs. the FOV.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

....and on the subject of soft corners,

Pawel may say what he wants, and he may be right when citing numbers and charts. It is no secret that domes do yield soft corners. But, using that shortcoming as an artistic choice or tool is quite valid and far from an excuse. We all know that one of the biggest, if not the biggest, components of the "cinematic feel" is the shallow DOF that yields plenty of areas in the frame not only soft, but totally out of focus (OOF). And if you've noticed, those OOF areas are always at the corners of the frame, not in the center. Which is to say, if the important areas of the image are properly focused and interestingly composed, then nobody will notice the soft corners. In fact, the soft corners will be expected and, in most cases, subconsciously appreciated, as they will help focus the attention on what matters. I dare say nobody that has a hint of an artistic eye would put their subjects right at the corner of their frames, so why this indeed a technical limitation of existing technology, it is one that pretty much conforms itself to the well established precepts of composition and shot design. In other words, soft frames, sure, thank you very much. That way, I don't have to bother adding vignettes and soft corners filters in post.

And while we pass around some constructive criticism, I hope that famed sea dragon of Pawel did not spend the whole time dead smack in the center of the frame, as per the grab he posted. I would think that having the only system that is sharp from corner to corner would allow/encourage more creative placement of the subjects...

 

[Mark_Thorpe]

Hey Will,
Once you've prepped and are good then there should not be an issue with fogging due to the unit being used in a watertight / airtight container, if it's dry at the beginning it will be dry at the end. You will only get issues with water collecting on domes or flat ports that can be avoided by using a selection of tricks such as the potato scenario as mentioned.

I would prep cameras for tourist filming gigs that would see them closed at around 9am in the morning and not reopened until we returned from diving at around 4pm. All this time they would be on dive skiffs under Micronesian sun, albeit at times shaded, and would have zero condensation / fogging issues.

Cheers,
Mark.

 

[Tom Hamilton]

Slight thread drift here, apologies; how many folks out there dive with one of these, seems like a good idea, will be picking one up meself;

http://www.nautiluslifeline.com/

 

[Johnny Friday]

Slight thread drift here, apologies; how many folks out there dive with one of these, seems like a good idea, will be picking one up meself;

http://www.nautiluslifeline.com/

I have two....GREAT for places like Galapagos, Socorro...where wide open ocean surrounds you and if you are missed by the boat or miss the ascent line.....Thankfully never had to use it, but a great tool with built in vhf & gps & distress call.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Great idea, however, their water tightness is far from a sure thing. I've had two of them drown on me on dives to 200 ft, well within their advertised range. I picked up four more for an expedition for which I am the diving consultant and they've had problems too. Basically, if I am on a wreck or somewhere else where there are surface, or shallow water, buoys where I can leave these suckers dangling, then I bring them with me. Otherwise, I don't bother, but then again, I've heard from many others who have taken them down without problems....

 

[jim kozmik]

NEED SOME White shark shooting advice..off to Guadalupe for in 2 weeks .

NEED SOME White shark shooting advice..off to Guadalupe for in 2 weeks .

Off to Mexico,s famed Guadalupe island on August 18th for 2 week white caged shark shoot.I have watched numerous expedition sceens with the cage at the surface and now on the Nautilus liveaboard,cages are also at 45 ft and 40 ft between 2 cages.Now do I use a nd filter with deepblue ocean light,magic-red filter.long arm small led lights to throw light out to 12 ft for shark swim bys...any thoughts between 8ooam..noon and 300pm shoots as the sun dips...any ideas would be appreciated thanks

 

[Johnny Friday]

Jim,
I'm off for shoot there in Sept. and shot there a few times...I see no reason to use ND there at that depth...near surface i'd probably use one...but on the deeper cages....i go skinny and will do the same on my sept. shoot there.

 

[Johnny Friday]

Frame Grab (Epic 5K HD @ 24fps timeline @ 48fps overcranked)--using Sigma 15mm Fisheye that covers full frame. No filtration used on the lens. Shot at 320iso.

....lots of movement in this shot (not only the subject and animals), but the camera panning from right to left. Not a perfectly sharp admittadely not a perfectly framed or sharp grab, but often times we judge a frame grab while not seeing the video. In fact just the fact that we can do that is pretty amazing. This one also not pin sharp at edges...but better than the rectilinear 11-16 Tokina.

[/url] Sigma 15mm Fisheye by RedCineUnderwater, on Flickr[/IMG]

 

[Tom Hamilton]

Great idea, however, their water tightness is far from a sure thing. I've had two of them drown on me on dives to 200 ft, well within their advertised range. I picked up four more for an expedition for which I am the diving consultant and they've had problems too. Basically, if I am on a wreck or somewhere else where there are surface, or shallow water, buoys where I can leave these suckers dangling, then I bring them with me. Otherwise, I don't bother, but then again, I've heard from many others who have taken them down without problems....

Rudi,

Were they prompt in honoring the warranty, short turnaround times?

Thanks

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Off to Mexico,s famed Guadalupe island on August 18th for 2 week white caged shark shoot.I have watched numerous expedition sceens with the cage at the surface and now on the Nautilus liveaboard,cages are also at 45 ft and 40 ft between 2 cages.Now do I use a nd filter with deepblue ocean light,magic-red filter.long arm small led lights to throw light out to 12 ft for shark swim bys...any thoughts between 8ooam..noon and 300pm shoots as the sun dips...any ideas would be appreciated thanks

Hey, Jim.

No ND filters.

Place the biggest lights you can get as far apart and as far back as you can. This will reduce the light fall-off. You do not want big light fall-off because the sharks would generally change the distance from the camera on each (most) shots.

I would use either relatively mild (one stop minus green) or no colour filter.

...And did I mention something that yields more than 75 deg on the EPIC? I felt the video posted by David was, indeed, beautiful, but it gave me a very claustrophobic feel with how narrow the perspective was, and dare I say, even disturbing, given the size of the subjects vs. the FOV.

To me, it is the distortions that cause the "claustrophobic" and "porthole view" effect. In particular, fisheye (barrel) distortion, despite extremely wide angle, creates a disturbing "porthole view" effect. Interestingly, the reverse pin-cussion distortion (flat port) also creates similar claustrophobic perception. In stereoscopic 3D all of the geometric distortions need to be removed in order to assist the brain in even fusing the images. In 2D we can accept them as an artistic choice (or sometimes a necessity :banghead

Field curvature (and astigmatism) are somewhat related to the geometric distortions and caused by the same optical shotrcomings of adapting land lenses to underwater medium. But, unlike geometric distortions they can not be improved in the post. Flat images appear closer on the edges than in the centre of the frame. It also affects how the focus "plane" is curved all of which contribute to the "porthole view" feel.

For me, the most "immersive" look is that from a lens rendering perfectly flat, undistorted and evenly lit image across the entire frame. Crisp from corner to corner. Think of Master Primes on land. Even normal focal lengths feel "expansive" and "immersive". This is because they render the scene exactly how our eyes perceive it. It has little to do with the angle of view. It has everything to do with how much distortions and imperfections is there in the image. Vignetting and soft corners/edges also attribute to "claustrophobic" "porthole view" experience - again, nothing to do with the angle of view. Brighten the corners and it feels more "spacial" already.

Another important factor contributing to "claustrophobic" "porthole view" is the steadiness of the shot. Interestingly, a locked-off shot can be also perceived as claustrophobic with our subconciousness wanting to see things around. In real life we tend to look around and turn our heads to discover the scene. Slow pan, or tracking generally assist in creating more "immersive" and "expansive" viewer's experience. Think of a dolly, aerial or a crane shot on land. The slow and steady tracking or panning assist in perception of space and "immersive" experience. Start shaking the camera and you will perceive it as a "porthole view".

BTW, these are general comments, not specific to David Nardini's clip.

I'm just looking at Phil Barthropp's olympic dive pool shot in full motion and can't belive how "immersive" it feels - as if it was shot with a 270 degree lens. But, it was not. It is the flatness of the field that makes it so incredibly "immersive". We may be able to show you the motion picture soon after the Olympics

 

[Will Keir]

On the subject of HDCAM,

I hate how much care and constant fiddling focus requires with the RED or EPIC.

Why don't you guys just focus to infinity? Loss of sharpness/detail? Like land, are water optics sharpest at F 5.6?