Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by uwxplorer

  1. Not using the TG5 but the TG4, so this might totally irrelevant, but I have had similar experience there. However, my understanding is that you are talking about the jpg version of your shots (as I am doing). Using the raw data, you can indeed adjust the WB as you see fit (I suppose that that is what you are doing above), provided obviously that you have enough signal. I don't think you can expect a preset WB to get it right in all circumstances. In very diverse environment, you should expect to WB each shot specifically. I personally don't bother, as I am using my camera mostly for memory snapshots, but that's in principle feasible. This being said, I am using video lights as well (no strobes). If close enough from my subject (I have 15,000 lumens of light), the UW mode does indeed seem to not get it right. I am too lazy to switch back and forth between mode, so I just use the raw version. Another issue you might have is that you are apparently using your zoom lens (10 m, 15 m for the critter shots). I don't think you should expect anything vivid at these distances. Too much water between the sensor and your subject. Your lights are powerless at these distances. Get closer, dim the lights if that frightens the critters, but reduce the color absorption by water. Good luck!
  2. I don't have a 3D TV myself, but in my recent experience with 3D video uploading to Youtube, I used a friend of mine as a beta tester. One thing I discovered (reading on the web) is that the Youtube "this is a 3D video" checkbox needs to be unchecked for some 3D TVs to actually do their job of expanding and alternating frames. Sounds counterintuitive, but I confirmed this in my case. The problem is that this is an option which is set by the uploader, not the viewer... All this to warn you that, even though Barry's video is probably perfectly fine, your friend's TV might have some troubles recognizing it as such.
  3. @trimix125: you will need to watch that specific video on a 3D TV. This will have its own glasses requirement depending on the technology used. The simplest way to watch a "3D" video on Youtube, say on your computer, is when the video is exported in "anaglyph" mode (left image is red, right is blue+green). There you will have to use one of these cheap red/cyan glasses. Another option is, for a side-by-side "unsqueezed" video, to use a Google cardboard device and your phone. But in this particular example, since the left and right views are squeezed in order to fit into the HD format (they are then expanded and alternated by a 3D TV), trying to watch it with a Google cardboard device would result in... a squeezed aspect ratio. Not very enjoyable in my experience. Unfortunately, Youtube doesn't convert videos from one format to another anymore (I guess it turned out to be too taxing on their servers), which makes exporting the different versions of a video and uploading them quite painstaking.
  4. Very nice footage and edit! Thanks for sharing. The whale doesn't look very large (although quite impressive already), or is it just me? A little detail I noticed is that there seems to be what looks like a fish trapped in one of its right gills... It so nagged me, I was wondering whether a diver would try to grab it. I wonder whether that why it came close to you several times?
  5. When there is no tip jar, something is fishy... best to tip each individual separately.
  6. You learn. Remember that there is no health insurance paid for for these seasonal and temporary jobs (in addition to all the horror stories you have already heard about the US working class). When you are a local, you come to appreciate a boat that goes an extra length to find the better spot. When you have expensive or heavy gear, you appreciate that they help you with it and take special care of it. And when you are a rude, ignorant and arrogant European, you should acknowledge that it takes a special kind of zen attitude to overlook your pettiness :-) [Edit: I realize some might be missing the humor. This is not, I repeat, not addressed to the OP]. Even boat owners rarely spend their holidays on the Riviera (if they take any). Just take a different look at the country you're visiting and leave all these comfortable prejudices back home...
  7. The formal document was pretty much the same as the one I posted above. This is my little contribution to upholding the quality of BBC productions for years to come... :-) PS: I received the payment but am still waiting for the DVD of the show...
  8. I have provided the requested info as an attachment, which they say they will not keep a copy of. Nothing has happened one week later. I am not in a rush...
  9. That is certainly a possibility... And I may add that if I ever lose the original footage, I will never be able to enforce my rights, not mentioning that if I stop using the email address the exchange took place through...etc, etc. Probably one more reason I will stick to doing things I like as a mere hobby, and never try to make a living out of them!
  10. Good thinking except that a heavy camera on a light tripod is not going to be very stable. Flooding the tripod leg is going to make it heavy and my experience is that it is very cumbersome to haul around. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a one seize fit all solution... I have a hard time picturing juggling with floats, but I'd be curious to see your solution when you have put it together (and tried it!). :-) My only point was that, rather than investing in a"dedicated" underwater tripod, which might be far from ideal in any case but definitely very expensive, a home-made tripod can do a pretty descent job at a more reasonable cost. I wanted to experiment with macro before I committed to an expensive piece of kit and it appears that this might do the job in the foreseeable future. It is definitely more tedious than wide-angle though.
  11. +1 As a side note, where I dive, the line is often blurry and green! :-)
  12. Revisiting this old thread to conclude. The permanent weights idea was a bad one. Way too heavy to carry along and a potential buoyancy hazard. Instead, I strapped one metal ring to each leg and carried 3 clippable two-pound weights which I have on my BCD when swimming around (after removing the corresponding weight from my BCD pockets), and clip onto the tripod when setting up a shot. The weights are not necessary for my buoyancy at depth, so I simply need to dump some air from my BCD when I set up the tripod. When I want to move to some other place, I unclip the weights one at a time and add a bit of air in my BCD to compensate. I suppose that in a less surgy environment, less weight would be necessary to stabilize the rig.
  13. Bought the GoPro dessicant tablets after trying the toilet paper trick: too much risk to pinch TP with the housing and flood the unit. Those tablets fit perfectly. I just need to go back to some hot and humid destination...
  14. Thanks all for the feedback. Never watched the program and never will and I don't think that much of my own footage, but if this happens again, I will be ready!
  15. I did not mean to doubt your integrity, my apologies if I sounded critical, but I have seen some pretty dubious practice from one photographer bringing 'amazing' pictures back, but handling his 'subjects' like puppets (nudis). It's clearly a one in a lifetime encounter for a videographer. Congratulations on a dive which must have been challenging (different angles, focus, etc). Nice short edit too!
  16. Wow! Nudis have to eat... Navanax around here (SoCal) is known as a fierce hunter, although I have yet to witness an attack. Great shots! PS: you didn't bring the poor thing to the big guy, right?
  17. As much of a comment as a question, but the pictures in the first post show a front-mounted addition block, yet the post says that manual gas addition is via the 'case valves', which I'd interpret as being the rear-installed ones (not available anymore on newer units). Strange post for wetpixel indeed...
  18. Not sure I can change my mind about that... And we haven't discussed length, but the sequence on YouTube is a couple of minutes long (a single shot in fact).The producer was upfront with "we can't do more than $80". I obviously don't want to make it harder for pros to make a living (that would be thou, not the BBC).Thanks for the feedback. Thanks.I don't think the footage is anything special, but you can check it out at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHrP2lK_1tI
  19. I am a complete amateur and beginner in underwater video and as a matter of fact got busy learning how to rebreath during the past few months, so not much into video filming lately. Imagine my surprise when I got a YouTube request from a producer at the BBC asking whether he could use some of my footage for their program. The show is called "Nature's Weirdest Events" and they are apparently relying on a lot of YouTube footage (if not exclusively). The conditions offered to me were far from generous but OK with me. I am pasting them here for your review: ----------------------------------- I understand that you have kindly supplied the footage “pyrosome-Garibaldi encounter footage”, which we intend to include in the above programme. I am writing to thank you for this appreciated assistance and to confirm that: i) You hereby grant the British Broadcasting Corporation (“the BBC”), BBC Worldwide Limited and its/their licensees and assigns the non-exclusive right by way of a licence to use the Material for all purposes (including use in all media now known or which may hereafter become known) throughout the world for the full period of copyright and any extensions, revivals and renewals thereof; 10 years – clearable for a further two years ii) There shall be no obligation on the part of the BBC to use the Material or any part thereof; iii) You warrant that the Material is original material of which you are the sole owner and that the exploitation of the Material by the BBC shall not violate or infringe the copyright or any other rights of any third party and you shall hold the BBC harmless in respect of the same; iv) In recognition of the needs of television production you hereby grant to the BBC the unlimited right to edit copy add to take from adapt or translate the Material v) Except as described above, any proposed use of the material within subsequent BBC broadcasts or further distribution of the above programme will require separate consent and possible payment to be agreed as and when applicable. The copyright of the footage remains entirely yours. You are simply allowing the production a non-exclusive licence to feature your footage in this one programme only vi) In recognition of your contribution the production will – pay you the sum of $80, credit your footage on the programme’s website, provide a copy of the programme featuring your footage If this is acceptable, please would you complete the section below and return this letter to me. Thank you again for your help and co-operation in this matter. ------------------------------ Now what I found surprising is that after having briefly discussed the basics (OK for them to use my footage for a 1) one time $80 payment, 2) credit in the programme and 3) copy of the programme sent to me), I was sent a request to upload the file without even been sent any kind of contract. The text above was sent to me by email after I requested it as a pre-condition for me to upload the file. Lots of the wording came out of nowhere as far as I am concerned, as we only add briefly agreed on the 3 points above. Once again, I am not in this for money, fame or recognition, but simply a bit surprised by this being the practice of a BBC producer. Note that I did not remove the BBC letter head, there were none, simply the name and title of the producer (which I removed) and a BBC disclaimer at the end. Not even as a PDF attachment, but in plain text within the body of the email... Any comment would be appreciated.
  20. Terrific lecture David, thanks. There must be a large fudge factor though, as my buddy dove with a H3 BE and was shooting 1080p30 w/o Protune (with my H2, I was shooting a continuous 5M pixels time-lapse series at 2 s intervals, and except for the graininess, I don't think he suffered from fogging. We both set up or cameras in the same apartment in Kona. I was surprised, because I had never experienced this in SoCal, but even though the temperature difference from surface to bottom can be as large as 20° F, I guessed what saved me was the lower humidity. I also wanted to mention that I put my gear in the rinse bucket > 1 hr before the dive, as told...
  21. All good advice, thanks. On a slightly different topic, my friend used his GoPro 3 during that dive, and the footage is very noisy. I was very surprised by the poor quality, which reminded me of my first underwater camera, a Bonica. He was shooting in 1080p30 (and did not suffer from fogging). What I do not understand is that the first sequence shot at the beginning of the dive (already in night conditions) looked fine... Any comment would be appreciated.
  22. Just came back from a Manta dive in Mona, where I had my GoPro Hero2 mounted on top of my L&M housing, set to time-lapse (2s) mode. None of the shots where any good, being blurred due to what I think may have been fogging. There was clear condensation visible inside the housing (lens side). I usually don't have this problem in cold water, but I guess ambient humidity plays a bigger role than I thought... Any advice on how to avoid this in the future? The good news is that my video (taken with the Sony CX550 in the L&M housing) came out great!
  23. ...with the occasional videographer, too. Boy, I hate those strobes flashing in the background :-)
  • Create New...