Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Show me your GH5, How you trim your buoyancy?

Panasonic GH5 buoyancy

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#21 dreifish

dreifish

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SE Asia

Posted 28 April 2018 - 09:08 PM

This is probably not the most elegant setup, but the rig is neutral in the water and massive enough to give pretty stable footage.

 

IMG_0057.JPG

Attached Images

  • IMG_0058.JPG


#22 thetrickster

thetrickster

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 922 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain

Posted 29 April 2018 - 12:48 AM

This is probably not the most elegant setup, but the rig is neutral in the water and massive enough to give pretty stable footage.


That’s the key, being neutral - does matter if it looks weird. That’s the only issue with these ‘slim’ housings compared to gates and the like. They are neutral to begin with - we have to slap on all sorts of float arms.

Do you find the float arms give you enough separation to avoid backscatter?

Love the computer mount. That’s nice and easy to see.

How have you got the rear configured? Looks like it comes out flat (towards you) ?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Regards, Richard

---

Camera Rig: Nauticam Lumix GH5/GH5s, 14-42mm II, WWL-1, Atomos Inferno, ScubaLamp V6K Pro Lighting

www.richardwait.com


#23 dreifish

dreifish

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SE Asia

Posted 29 April 2018 - 03:36 AM

That’s the key, being neutral - does matter if it looks weird. That’s the only issue with these ‘slim’ housings compared to gates and the like. They are neutral to begin with - we have to slap on all sorts of float arms.

Do you find the float arms give you enough separation to avoid backscatter?

Love the computer mount. That’s nice and easy to see.

How have you got the rear configured? Looks like it comes out flat (towards you) ?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 Yes, there's enough separation to avoid backscatter with subjects within a meter of the lens. The lights aren't really strong enough to make a difference with objects further away. If the object is closer than about 30 cm, I need to turn the lights inwards to light it properly. But it's worth noting that the GATES GT14s have a 90 degree angle, whereas the V6Ks have a wider angle around 120 degrees so they need to be further out.

 

I've got three arms with stix floats rigged up at the back (connected to the tripod-mount ball arms) to provide a place to store my wet diopeter and Weefine ring light combination. The 9 stix jumbo floats basically render that setup neutral, so the whole rig is neutral with the ring light or without it (if I'm doing a wide-angle only dive). I also find that having the rig extend at the back like this helps to add a bit of mass and roll stability.

 

(As a side note, I have 4 V6Ks in my possession currently. Two of them together are not quite as powerful as a single GT14 (maybe about 75% as powerful). I don't know if this is because the wider beam angle distributes the illumination over a wider area or because the 12000 lumen rating is overstated or a combination of the two, but I guess you still get what you pay for at the end of the day. I haven't compared the V6Ks to the Keldan lights directly though, so maybe that's a more even battle.

Attached Images

  • IMG_0060.JPG


#24 thetrickster

thetrickster

    Great White

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 922 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain

Posted 29 April 2018 - 04:02 AM

Two of them together are not quite as powerful as a single GT14 (maybe about 75% as powerful). I don't know if this is because the wider beam angle distributes the illumination over a wider area or because the 12000 lumen rating is overstated or a combination of the two, but I guess you still get what you pay for at the end of the day. I haven't compared the V6Ks to the Keldan lights directly though, so maybe that's a more even battle.

 

I think that works out, about about right then :)

14000lm at 90' gives you a lux reading of 7600lx at 1m
12000lm at 120' gives you a lux reading of 3800lx at 1m (which given two light sources and the not perfect 1+1 adding up of light photons) gives you what you got i guess.

 

For the money, they are an absolute steal.


Regards, Richard

---

Camera Rig: Nauticam Lumix GH5/GH5s, 14-42mm II, WWL-1, Atomos Inferno, ScubaLamp V6K Pro Lighting

www.richardwait.com


#25 Lionfi2s

Lionfi2s

    Moray Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 30 April 2018 - 08:41 AM

 Yes, there's enough separation to avoid backscatter with subjects within a meter of the lens. The lights aren't really strong enough to make a difference with objects further away. If the object is closer than about 30 cm, I need to turn the lights inwards to light it properly. But it's worth noting that the GATES GT14s have a 90 degree angle, whereas the V6Ks have a wider angle around 120 degrees so they need to be further out.

 

14000 lumen not enough for objects further than 1 meter away in clear water? Wonder how much light we really need then...



#26 dreifish

dreifish

    Sting Ray

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SE Asia

Posted 01 May 2018 - 12:40 AM

14000 lumen not enough for objects further than 1 meter away in clear water? Wonder how much light we really need then...

It's not really an issue of power so much as the water filtering out color.  Even with strobes, which are probably an order of magnitude more powerful than video lights still, you don't get good results beyond about 2-3 meters underwater. Remember that the light has to travel from the source to the subject, and then back to you, and the particles in the water column is defracting it the whole way. So just like you the reds and yellows get filtered from ambient light the further away you are from the surface, so too they get filtered out of your artificial light the further away you are from your subject...



#27 Lionfi2s

Lionfi2s

    Moray Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts

Posted 01 May 2018 - 04:08 AM

Agreed about being a matter of distance from the source and amount of water particulates but then it is an issue of power too, as the more powerful your lights the further they reach or I am missing something. 



#28 Barmaglot

Barmaglot

    Wolf Eel

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 May 2018 - 01:50 PM

More powerful lights do reach further, but the thing is, the intensity of reflected light reaching your lens decreases with the fourth power of distance - i.e. double the distance, and the light intensity decreases sixteenfold. If you get proper illumination from 14k lm at 1 meter, you'll need 224k lm to get the same effect at 2 meters. You can get a lot more range by using a narrow beam, but it doesn't help with video when you need to illuminate the entire field of view.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Panasonic GH5, buoyancy