I shot this footage of a sacoglossan (sap-sucking slug) in May in the Lembeh Strait.
I was unable to find a match for it in my references, and Terry Gosliner (on the strength of 1 frame grab), reckoned it was a new species of Stiliger sp., so I made a little YouTube video of it.
I particularly like how you can see the material traveling up and down the ducts of the digestive gland.
Shot with my Panasonic GH4 in a Nauticam NA-GH4 housing. I used an Olympus M.Zuiko ED 60mm f2.8 macro lens and a Nauticam CMC. Quite a lot of the shots are cropped from 2160p to 1080p to give more effective magnification.
Apparently it was director Charles Lewis who said "A dissolve (or any other transition) is just a cut looking for a place to happen."
In traditional editing "grammar", a dissolve signifies a lapse in time. This seems to be what Dustin is (successfully) conveying with most of those dissolves in the sketching sequence, but I guess some of them could be cleaner as a straight cut.
IMO dissolves also still have an occasional place for simply "smoothing things out", especially when limited by the nature of the footage. I have gone a bit to the opposite extreme these days, and use straight cuts almost exclusively, where actually the occasional dissolve might help.
I just use the simple way cut the filter followed the shape of lens buttom and just use the thin tape stick it with the lens.I didn't know that you can replace the lens bayonet like the one on 8mm fisheye.Please let me know if you know how's it work?
I also used Magic Tape the other day to stick some ND gel to the back of my 7-14mm. It's fiddly and inelegant, but works OK. Use Scotch Magic Tape, not Sellotape, so it doesn't leave a residue.
Look here for the story of fitting the 8mm filter holder to the back of the 7-14mm. You need Panasonic part number VXQ1911 (and possibly more), which might be difficult outside the USA. Also I recall that it's not just a straight swap. A bit of fiddling/fettling is required? If anyone plans to do this, please keep us informed how it goes and where you got the parts. I'm interested.
I use photo style CinelikeD with some adjusting Contrast +2 , Sharpness +2,Hue +5 and some post color editing in FCPX.
Those are really unconventional settings. Seems like most users are reducing contrast and sharpness, and leaving hue at 0. But anyway if it works, it works. Here I'm still using Natural -2/-2/-2/0/0, and adding contrast and sharpness in post. I sometimes feel like just going with totally default Standard.
p.s. Olympus M.ZUIKO Digital ED 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO Lens coming end of June. USD 1299 I wonder if Nauticam supports it.
...On the mirrorless line they havent the upper metal connection like on DSRL line, hence all the weight applies on two small screws in the handle body...
The GH4 housing is more like Nauticam's DSLR housings, and does have the metal bracket at the top, but the metal doesn't necessarily prevent breakage of the handle: https://www.facebook...647118352167898
I saw some clamps produced by an Italian company that have the inner part covered with a synthetic material. They are very smooth but I do not know with aging...
Looks like cork to me. I suspect that might get chewed up if it's moved while tight on a ball with an o-ring. Any idea what the manufacturer is called?
Thanks for the replies and to SwiftFF5 for the kind words.
What do you not like about arm and clamps?...
I simply don't like the time taken to get the lights in position. 3 clamps on each light arm plus the clamps on the lights' YS mounts all come into play. It's just a lot more work than a Locline type of solution, and risks missing shots. All that on top of getting Xit404 tripod legs into position, and occasionally a 3rd light. On some shots I'm literally dealing with 20 things that I might have to adjust and tighten.
When the balls and clamps on my light arms were new I was often able to set them to just the right tightness that allowed them to move but not flop. Now the clamps are aging and are losing their finish, they're not as smooth and that's more difficult. I'm actually wondering about greasing them.
...Generally if your beams are not so wide you only need 10" of arms and locline are just fine. If instead you have very wide beams you need much longer arms. What you should consider are small arm segments such as 5+3 For ball and clamp you don't need anything longer with your Keldan
I disagree with this. I wouldn't want to go shorter than 8"+8" for my Keldans. Not only do the Keldans have very wide beams (110 degrees - one reason that I'm looking to replace them with narrower lights for macro), but I want the flexibility of positioning that the long arms give. 5"+3" for me would be too limiting. I also need the buoyancy of my long Inon mega float arms.
I'm not getting on very well using arms with clamps for video. They drive me a bit mad. So I'm considering "bendy arm" solutions again. I've used Locline arms in the past but it creaked so loudly, disturbing both marine life and my fellow divers. I've also made DIY light arms out of plastic Gorillapod, but all the joints gradually went floppy.
Has anyone used strong, chunky Locline that doesn't creak or flop? If so, exactly what was the spec and where did you get it?
Any other clever solutions for bendy light arms?
(I'm using Keldan Luna 4X now but might change to something smaller and lighter for macro)
Nice job Dustin! The exposure/colours/grading looks great.
I didn't think of it while I watching, but there were a couple of moments where I was struggling to understand how big it was, particularly the wide overhead shot at 2:20, where it could be anything from Spitfire size to jumbo jet size. So I agree that a diver or two in shot would have helped.
Also, people in underwater videos usually helps the view count. "People-doing-amazing/adventurous-things" videos are hits on YouTube/Vimeo because viewers relate to the divers in the shots. Escapism!
For me, the music was slightly too epic for the scale of the subject. But as we know, music is really subjective, difficult to find, and you can't please all the people all the time.
If possible I'd move the camera to where it can see the eel's burrow (i.e. higher or closer than you have it). I'd aim for something like F14. Small aperture without being so small that you get diffraction. I'd focus on the sand at what I guess to be the same distance from the camera as the eel's head will be (i.e. A bit closer than what you have it). Then I'd hope for the best and possibly even try to adjust focus to the eel's head once it's out of the burrow. I'd probably shoot a few takes, refocusing between each. Finally I'd probably swear a lot and move onto the next subject.