Jump to content


r4e

Member Since 16 Jan 2011
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 08:26 PM
-----

#342879 Any ideas on flooding insurance for a non-US resident/non-homeowner??

Posted by r4e on 05 February 2014 - 03:14 AM

I once asked from an insurance company director about how they insure their own fleet of cars. The answer was simple: no insurance.

 

On the long run, self-insurance is likely to be more economical especially for all none-essential stuff, i.e. your living does not depend on it.

 

The only exception to this is if you think you are atleast 25-30% more risky than the average insurance customer of that policy. If you can get a "normal" insurance or home insurance to cover your photographic and diving equipment, it might be worth it. But if you select a more specialized insurance, it is more likely to match the increased risk via higher insurance payments.

 

If you think you cannot afford to self-insure due to high replacement costs, consider that the insurance payments as "down-payments" of your future replacement camera IF the accident actually happens. However, it is far more likely that no accident will happen, and, those "downpayments" are lost forever and you cannot use that money to finance your next new camera.

 

N.B. self-insurance is not suitable for home insurance or anything where you might be liable to third parties.




#339233 Video - Ordinskaya Caves near Ural mountains

Posted by r4e on 10 November 2013 - 09:04 AM

Beautiful video indeed.

 

PS

Yesterday I was seeing it on my 46" smart-tv via the vimeo app and I noticed a lot of macro-bloks/pixelation in the low lights. Maybe you should reload with a higher bitrate. In some video vimeo encoding strives to renders low light details.

Thanks Davide for your comments and feedback.

 

I'll need to pixel peep because I did not notice the pixelation on my monitor. Could you perhaps point out the time codes and areas where you noticed the pixelation? The mp4-files for Vimeo were exported from Edius with H.264/AVC Exporter Plug-in, Profile=High, CBR 15M bps, Quality=Superfine. Perhaps I should have used Profile=Main and/or a still higher bitrate.

 

During edit the foremost concerns were noise, color balance adjustment and image stability. With the exception of one shot, I did not apply noise reduction (yet) because I have not yet got enough experience with Edius. For most of the shots I did apply mid-range 3-way color adjust from green/cyan towards blue/purple, because the LED lamps did have a greenish color cast. This gave better results than by using the whitebalance tools. On the shots of the second episode I actually used an optical green water filter which also helped somewhat.




#338501 Video - Ordinskaya Caves near Ural mountains

Posted by r4e on 22 October 2013 - 02:53 PM

Nice footage except for the butt effect :)

Which camera/lens/lightning did you use?

Thanks for your comments.

 

The camera was my old Sony MC50E in an Aquatica/Amphibico housing. For this trip I preferred the video camera instead of my new Canon 5DIII for several reasons:

1) Less travel weight,

2) Takes less attention during dive, which is important in new caves without guides.

3) No limits on footage. I shot 60-80 minutes of video on an average dive.

4) Less drag. We swam a total of 13-15 kilometers in caves and I got blisters on my ankles.

 

The drawback is avchd and less tolerance for adjustments in edit. I really would want to shoot raw, but anything less than an hour of video record capacity feels crippled.

 

The video lights were the new Supernova Minis by Northern Light Scuba. We had 4 of them, each giving 8000 lumens. Measured burn times ranged between 78-128 minutes for LiIon batteries of allowable size for air travel.




#338499 Video - Ordinskaya Caves near Ural mountains

Posted by r4e on 22 October 2013 - 01:56 PM

Here is the first episode of cave diving footage in Orda. Since I'll be working on the next episodes sooner or later, any comments and feedback will be appreciated. And yes, I am aware of the butt issue...next episodes will show some other angles as well...

 

Please feel free to view in full screen mode.

 

 

 




#323175 Sony FS100 white balance at depth

Posted by r4e on 23 December 2012 - 01:13 PM

I agree with the target of achieving WB without needing to use any post-processing.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but, I would have expected more response in the image when stepping through the color temperatures - thanks Thani for sharing that. Could it be that the WB adjustment is diminished to some degree due to some other "stronger" control or compensating autoadjustment that limits the range available to WB adjustment? Disabling that control might allow for a larger WB adjustment range.

Hopefully the WB adjustment is done in the analog compontents (amplication) before the A/D converters in the camera. Otherwise, if the WB is done internally in the digital stages, there is far less latitude for WB adjustment without introducing other artefacts like banding. This is why I am interested to know how well the camera reproduces a graded blue or green water background (without any creative work in CG).

Just my 2 cents.


#321127 Any thoughts about this light?

Posted by r4e on 21 November 2012 - 03:17 PM

The pictures below are unprocessed frame grabs from AVCHD video of a Sony MC50E, WB set to "Outdoors". This WB setting gives near perfect settings for my HMI lamp.

The first picture shows three divers. Diver one, the furthest ahead, is using a Beast at half power. Divers two and three are using the 6000 lumen LED lamps. Unfortunately visibility was poor.

The second picture shows the lead diver holding the Beast downwards. Here you can see how even and wide the light beam is. Plus a soft edge.

The third picture is experimentation of a backlit subject. The small spot to the right of the diver is a HID lamp. The remainder is light from the Beast, partially reflected by an air/water surface at tunnel roof.

Attached Images

  • Pearl1.jpg
  • TheBeastPearl4.jpg
  • TheBeastPearl3-4.jpg



#320606 Any thoughts about this light?

Posted by r4e on 14 November 2012 - 10:33 PM

One of the few cave diving video that not bored me Posted Image
The lights used are these Scubamafia "the beast", a 300W Led lighthead.
http://www.scubamafi...ight-p-354.html

These guys have another interesting and affordable model. Two LED light heads at 6000 lumens each, 150° flood, with two battery canister options. The smaller 153 Wh battery gives a burn time of 70 minutes for two light heads. Fitted with E/O cords, you could still bring the light set plus one or two spare batteries as carry-on luggage almost anywhere on the globe. (see previous message).

http://www.scubamafi...ight-p-323.html

SInce Scubamafia is located within 2 hours driving distance, I might have to pay a visit to them and compare their stuff to my not-so-travel-friendly 16000 lumen Salvo 200 W HMI.Posted Image


#320601 Any thoughts about this light?

Posted by r4e on 14 November 2012 - 09:47 PM

Above 300 watt/hr ( ballpark ) battery I think we can not bring in on the airline.
http://www.bobatkins...strictions.html

You are correct about the 300 Wh limit for air travel within U.S. However, the text behind the link is slightly misleading.
A more accurate description can be found here:
http://safetravel.do...arger_batt.html

I don't know the global rule but I wanted to buy for a friend a scooter from USA which the battery pack can not be shipped to OUTSIDE USA regardless of mode of transport, while it is only 300 Watt/hr.

Here in Europe, air travel is regulated by IATA. IATA seems to cover most of the globe: 240 airlines from 118 countries and 84% of total global air traffic. Unfortunately for us, IATA sets the limits lower:

"2.3.3.2
Lithium ion batteries exceeding a watt-hour rating of 100 Wh but not exceeding 160 Wh may be carried as spare batteries in carry on baggage, or in equipment in either checked or carry on baggage. No more than two individually protected spare batteries per person may be carried."

http://www.iata.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/Documents/GuidanceDocumentontheTransportofLiBatt_2010.pdf
  • SPP likes this


#313406 Any thoughts about this light?

Posted by r4e on 23 July 2012 - 06:32 AM

My guess is that in any other than real clear water, the flare from this light will be a killer.


For comparison, here is a wreck video in not-so-clear water. A single 200W HMI lamp was used for illumination. 16,000 lumens. With our murky waters, it was a bit difficult to get a backlit profile of a 70 meter ship, or even the rear section of it. There was hardly any problem with flare/backscatter as long as the lamp was not too close to the camera.

[vimeohd]46189946[/vimeohd]