The "norm" for video is to shoot with the shutter open for half the duration of each frame. That means 1/120 if you're shooting 60 fps. 1/100 if you're shooting 50 fps. 1/60 if you're shooting 30 fps. 1/48 (or 1/50 if that's all that's available) if you're shooting 24 fps etc.. This is alternatively known as 180 degrees, as it dates back to rotary shutters on film cameras and projectors. A faster shutter speed is possible but with movement you will get a stuttery effect, a bit like a cartoon flipbook, because less motion-blur is captured. Having said that I've published loads of video with a faster shutter than 180 degrees. With a static shot it doesn't matter. I've even used 360 degrees (1/30 at 30p) in dark situations, rather than increase the ISO. Fast shutter speeds can be good for doing slow motion in post-production, where the motion interpolators like sharp frames to work with.
That's a lot of data. What format are you shooting?
You've got a couple of very nice smooth zooms in there. Didn't see the 2160p option at first so I assumed you'd done them by cropping to HD in post. Maybe I should try it. Haven't done a zoom during a shot in at least 10 years
I tried contact lenses for a while and just couldn't get on with putting them in and taking them out. Could never get the knack. A whole bag of stress in the mornings before dives, and then of course you've got them stuck in all day when you don't need them.
I didin't get far with prescriptiondivemasks.com by email. Maybe a face-to-face meeting at a trade show or their shop is the best way with them.
So I struggled with TUSA bifocal lenses for a while, having been told by their regional distributor that TUSA don't make full-frame corrective lenses. Basically I was looking at everything through the bifocal lens, not just the close stuff. Than I discovered that TUSA actually do make full-frame corrective lenses, all the way from +1.0 to +4.5. I swapped the bifocals in my TUSA Ceos mask for a pair of +2.5 full-frame lenses that I bought at https://www.simplysc...ndiveMasks.aspxThe optical quality is excellent, and I find that not only can I see little critters and the small text on my camera display, but subjects in the distance are pretty clear too. TUSA have always made great masks, so the mask itself is excellent. Most comfortable I've ever had.
What macro configuration would you get if you had the NAGH4+ 6"Dome for the 12-35 Pana and 7-14 pana?.
I've even thought in selling the port and lenses and start from scratch with wet lenses, but I'm not too happy with the idea of carrying the WWL-1 uderwater.
So, what set of port/lense and wet dipoters lenses you suggest would be the most versatil for macro??
Any chance to use my 12-15mm for macro?
I assume you meant 12-35mm in that last sentence. As far as I know, no, there isn't really any chance to use that for macro. It won't fit in any flat 67mm diameter ports. I think it will fit in the 77mm special port (option #1 below...I should try that some time!) but if you're going to buy that port, you may as well buy the lens it was designed for.
Your options are these:
1. Olympus 12-50mm in special 77mm port. I've got this setup and have been very happy with it. It's my usual choice at places like Lembeh and Anilao. You can switch it into the special 43mm fixed macro mode. The Nauticam CMC on the 77mm Nauticam flip arm works well with it too, to get you even more magnification. And at 12mm in non-macro mode you get wide enough for the odd medium shot. You could also put the WWL-1 on it (and I might), but probably better on #3 below. The Oly 12-50 can be got on Ebay pretty cheap as it was a kit lens. In your case, this is probably the best option.
2. Olympus 60mm macro. Gets you more magnification than the 12-50mm. I use this at places like Lembeh and Anilao where I've got a specific tiny target like pygmy seahorses. You're pretty screwed even for things like ghost pipefishes. I had to be 2m away from one of those once to fit it in the frame. There is also the Panasonic 45mm macro, but I think you may as well go all out and get the Olympus. Works well with CMC.
3. A Panasonic 14-42mm-based set up as described in my previous post. I've never used one so I can't comment much but I would probably have invested in this if I was starting from scratch because of the flexibility. You rely on the CMC and/or wet diopters for your macro shots in this case. I doubt that all-out macro would be as good as either of options #1 or #2 but I know you can get decent close-up shots with it. Peter Walker and others are have used that.
I've seen a lot of information about macro flip diopters and the WWL-1 but am unsure how they actually work during the dive.
They are wet-fit lenses. You can flip something small like a Nauticam CMC magnifier on a flip adaptor. The WWL-1 is too large for a flip arm so you have to fit it with the Nauticam bayonet system. Once you install that then you would also have to use the bayonet for the CMC and not be able to use the flip adaptor. You use the port alone for tightish shots, add the CMC for macro, or add the WWL-1 for wide.
For example, would I be able to take diopters off/on during the dive, or take the WWL-1 off/on during the dive? Or do they have to be set up prior to getting in the water?
You can change them during the dive. I don't know how people are storing them, especially the large WWL-1, and would be interested to know.
I'm mainly shooting small/medium fish with a few nudibranchs and blennies chucked in there. It would be absolutely fantastic to have a set-up where I could switch between a macro diopter and the WWL-1 during a dive. Does this exist?... ...what lens do you recommend for this kind of video work?
Yes it exists. If I was building a GH4 rig from scratch I'd buy the Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 Power O.I.S. Lens, 29mm port, WWL-1 and CMC. Here is a list of parts I would need to convert my existing rig which is based on completely different lenses and ports (apart from the CMC). It is very incomplete for what you need to buy from scratch but hopefullly useful as a start.
Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 Power O.I.S. Lens (black)($190 Amazon/Ebay)
83201 Wet Wide Lens WWL-1 ($995)
83212 Nauticam Bayonet Mounting Ring for WWL-1 Lens ($45)
83214 Bayonet Mount Adaptor for SMC/CMC Lenses ($45)
36165 Nauticam N85 Power Zoom Macro Port 29 (to use with 83201 WWL-1) ($280)
36146 Nauticam P1442X-PZ Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 Power OIS Zoom Gear ($220)
83213 3 x Nauticam M67 to Bayonet Mount Converter for Wet Lenses WWL-1/CMC/SMC (3 x $80)(3 so I could put bayonet mounts on my Inon float arms for storage, as well as the front of the port)
Home made 3D printed focus gear (start here) (then use function buttons for zoom)
Others may disagree on the exact choice of Panasonic lens (there is more than one 14-42mm) and the choice of magnifier/diopter.
Fantastic video Dustin. Very creative, good concept, nice work with the sound. The octopus shot at 3:35 is absolutely amazing, as is the one at 4:45.
As for suggestions, I would have used a more cliched "techy", "computer" font in "Matrix green" for the typing at the opening. The one you used didn't seem to fit somehow. And I would have made the frogfish burp when it was yawning to throw in a touch of humour.
It took nearly a minute to get the first stunning octopus shot up on screen. I think you'll lose some viewers with that. Not sure how you would get it up quicker though.
Posted by Nick Hope
on 07 February 2016 - 11:24 PM
I got some nice macro footage of Nembrotha chamberlaini nudibranchs mating at Red Rock and Twin Rocks in Anilao last year.
Nudibranchs have barbed penises to hold them together and the last clips shows the effort and twisting movement required to pull that pair apart.
Shot with my Panasonic GH4 in Nauticam NA-GH4 housing. I think I was using my Olympus M.Zuiko ED 12-50mm f3.5-6.3 EZ lens, with a Subsee diopter for some shots. The 2 most magnified shots are cropped in from 2160 to 1080p.
Posted by Nick Hope
on 03 February 2016 - 11:45 PM
Thanks Lutfu. That certainly looks pretty sharp, and wider than the 12-50 at 12mm without a wet lens. But it's US$1165 for the parts to make that work, and then you've got a lens that vignettes at the wide end ... And my shopping list to switch over to a PZ 14-42mm system with WWL-1 totals US$2015! I'm going to wait and use what I've got already until I see where Panasonic goes with the GH5 etc..
I don't think [Pana 14-42 II Mega + port35 + WWL-1] vignettes, but I'm sure others will confirm that. I'm not sure.
Posted by Nick Hope
on 03 February 2016 - 11:27 PM
The FIX NEO 1000 is cheaper and have more light in the spot mode 600 vs 500 lumens... Color temp is rated the same. Could be better. They are only listed for 369 euro a piece.
I've just noticed the FIX Neo Mini 1000 SW too. Looks like a focus light but the specs aren't so far off the FIX Neo 1000 DX SW. There are no CRI specs published, and no output adjustment [Edit: It says 25% steps], but you can put them nearer or further away from your subject, and your camera has plenty of things to adjust anyway. And what's not to love about tiny lights like this at less than $300? I do think they're worthy of serious consideration for macro. A while ago I was considering the previous Mini 500 version as a 3rd "backlight", behind my subject. Topside tests were promising, but I decided to save myself the hassle of a 3rd light for now.
But still sceptical that 600 lumen spot is enough for a high f setting on my GH4...
Be wary of high f settings on the Olympus 60mm macro lens. Diffraction kicks in at smaller apertures, as on any lens, and degrades the image. Take a look at line 7 below. In my tests it's sharpest at f4, good at f2.8 to f5.6, OK at f6.3 to f13, bad at f14 to f18, terrible at f20 and f22. I have a mini version of line 7 actually stuck to my macro port to remind me what to use and what not to. Lines 2 and 3 are for the Olympus 12-50 in wide mode and macro mode.
I think it's a birdbeak bufffish, Cyclichthys orbicularis. I've seen quite a few burrfishes/porcupinefishes with eye injuries, but none totally healed over like that. Their eyes do seem very vulnerable to damage.