Jump to content

dreifish

Member
  • Content Count

    434
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    62

dreifish last won the day on April 16

dreifish had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

259 Excellent

About dreifish

  • Rank
    Manta Ray
  • Birthday 02/10/1983

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.andreiv.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Finland

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    Canada
  • Camera Model & Brand
    Panasonic GH5
  • Camera Housing
    Nauticam NA-GH5
  • Strobe/Lighting Model & Brand
    Sea&Sea DS-02
  • Industry Affiliation
    Fridge Magnet Films

Recent Profile Visitors

20656 profile views
  1. In the first video you posted, it sounds like lens autofocus continuous noise (I have similar issue with adapted Canon 8-15mm). Second video there's different noises, but one of them at least sounds like the noise from adjusting the focal length using the zoom gear.
  2. I shot a GH5 II for a few weeks in the Red Sea last month. Mostly photos, but also video. Can't say I really noticed much image quality difference over the GH5, either for photos or videos. I wasn't doing side-by-side controlled tests, to be fair, just shooting. Continuous autofocus for video with the 14-42 + WWL-1 was definitely a bit better, but I was mostly shooting with the Canon 8-15mm fisheye + adapter, so the autofocus wasn't really an advantage there. In the end, not keeping the GH5 II. That $1700 can be better invested elsewhere
  3. The white balance seems to be biased quite a lot towards the red on most of the shots. No idea if that's an issue with the sony color science or you're just white balancing for a deep depth than where you actually end up filming. Perhaps you could try dialing down the red channel in post for a bit more of a neutral look?
  4. I didn't mean the oversized dome of the old Luna 8s, just the fact that the front element is rounded not flat. Even the new compact lights still have a 'rounded' front that results in a 110 degree beam in water very similar to the 120 angle in air. https://keldanlights.com/products/compact-lights/1571-video-8x-15000lm-cri95.html
  5. I've done controlled tests before comparing DivePro 18k lights vs. the Gates GT14s and Keldan Luna 8s (13k lumen model). The tests are somewhat complicated by the fact that the DivePros' output is concentrated in a ~90 degree cone, similar to the Gates GT14s, while the Keldans are closer to 110 or 120 degrees. Because of this, the actual amount of light for the Keldan that falls upon the subject ends up being half what you get from the DivePro and the Gates GT14s. The difference between the Gates and DivePros was not measurable in fstops. So.. I wouldn't worry too much about the cheaper 'chinese' lights meaningfully exaggerating their light output. Keldan certainly has nicer controls and better reliability. My dive buddies and I have experienced issues with DivePro cannister lights in cold water (4 degrees) where multiple units just stopped working for no reason. Clearly, the quality control and testing under challenging conditions could use improvement. But in my view Keldan made a serious mistake by using dome ports on the front instead of flat ports. A 90 degree beam is more than enough for video unless you're filming with a fisheye. I note that the X-Lights also use a dome port, which is silly.
  6. I found some sample files here (shot on land) https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1orh98TR0jyVYRVLGxAnZh7-1_9E3MNF- And answered my own question, at least partially: 1. The .CRM files don't import/edit natively in Final Cut. But there's a plugin. Playback is bad in both Better Quality and Better Performance mode on my 2018 15" Macbook Pro with a pretty mediocre Radeon Pro 555X 4 GB. And I don't see any way to change the white balance. 2. They edit natively in DaVinci Resolve 17.1 though. Debayered at quarter resolution, they actually play back at ~25fps. Not terrible in terms of editing on a laptop. 3. Unfortunately at least in Resolve, while you can control the Kelvin WB in the Camera RAW tab, you can only push color temp to 15000K/150 tint. That's not nearly enough for proper WB with ambient light below 6-7 meters. Anyone want to try with Premiere to see if there's any additional flexibility?
  7. Hey Davide, Gerald Undone's technical explanations are great. I have watched this particular video a while ago when it first came out. In this case though, it doesn't really answer my question. Let me rephrase it: when it comes to shooting underwater, is the R5's video raw codec a true raw codec that preserves your ability to fully adjust WB in post from, say, 2500K to 50000k just like you can in camera? As Gerald mentions, when it comes to video, not all raw formats are alike, and not all preserve the same flexibility as a raw photo. So I'm actually asking if you don't set a proper white balance at the time of shooting with the R5 but record in Canon Raw, do you have the same latitude to adjust the white balance in post as you would've had had you simply set it correctly in camera? A true raw format would allow you to have that flexibility in post. Some compressed raw formats don't though -- e.g. the current implementation of Prores Raw on the Ninja 5 recorder for the Sony A7S3 doesn't give you this possibility to adjust the colour temperature in post in degrees Kelvin in Final Cut. For the Panasonic S5 and S1H, Prores raw does include kelvin controls in Final Cut I believe (Interceptor21 can jump in here to correct me), but the range of adjustment only goes up to 10000k, not beyond? I would expect the raw format the R5 uses for video to be true raw with full flexibility over white balance, but would like someone with the camera who can confirm. Especially when it comes to underwater ambient light shots where the 'correct' kelvin WB temperature ends up at the extreme end of the scale.
  8. Does anyone have first hand experience with shooting raw 8k video on the R5 underwater? Setting aside the file sizes (can be partially addressed with 2TB Cfexpress-b cards) and the increased processing needs, are there any advantages over the compressed 8k 10-bit h.265 codec? 1. How is the ability to manipulate WB in post with the raw codec? Do you get better (or worse?) results than just setting WB in camera and baking it in? 2. Any advantages in terms of dynamic range over the CLOG files? 3. How about resolution? It's probably not perceptible, but does the raw recording actually capture more detail than the compressed h.265? Since I do both photography and video, I'm thinking of going with either the R5 or the Sony A1 to complement my current GH5. With Sony, you can do Prores Raw externally, but I believe there's still limitations on changing WB in post, so you haven't gained much. I'm wondering if the in-camera raw of the R5 is a significant advantage when it comes to underwater ambient light video. Short of first hand experience, testimony from those who have reviewed it would also be helpful
  9. The GH5S footage is pretty smooth. Might have to find a used body and experiment with it side by side with the GH5.
  10. Perhaps some of this is due to playing back 60fps video at 24fps and/or stabilization in post, but this footage is definitely smoother than the Canon unstabilized footage from Dustin. The housing for the E2 also looks to be exquisitely well trimmed with plenty of mass from the WACP. So.. basically, I think the moral of the story here is that a larger cinema housing with good trim can get you results at least comparable with those as of a smaller DSRL-type housing with IBIS. Either is viable. A small DSLR-type housing without IBIS, even with good trim/balance and a solid operator is still going to leave a bit to be desired in terms of stabilization, and might not be the best choice.
  11. White balance seems interesting.. adjusted in post with prores raw, or set in camera? Also, must be a pretty heavy beast once the external recorder and the WACP goes on, which should definitely help with the smoothness. Can it still trim neutral without any external floats? Btw, I'm guessing the above video is shot at the wide end of the WACP range? The barrel distortion/quasi-fisheye effect is definitely noticable. I dunno if it's any more pronounced than the WWL-1, but seems similar?
  12. I think it's interesting desaturated color palette. I thought it might actually be the out-of-camera output in a cave environment, but it could be desaturated in post. She doesn't mention in the video if she's filming in the standard picture profile or s-log, but given the noise and the 12800-20000 ISO range, I'd guess it's some flavor of s-log which probably isn't optimal in a low-light cave environment from a noise perspective. Especially in a cave where you're lighting the scene, I would expect dynamic range should not be a problem at all in any picture profile. But what do I know.. I've never shot in a real cave. One thing I'd really like to know about the camera is how well it does with ambient light white balance in the 10-20m range where Sony has been traditionally terrible. I used to shoot on the A7RII and enjoyed the camera a lot top-side, but found the colour science horrible underwater. It's supposed to be much better now, but none of the samples I've seen so far really showcase that.
  13. I think Dustin's Tubbataha video is a good illustration of the principle. Overall, it's really smooth camera work, but without IBIS, there's still micro-jitters in the moving wide angle shots that are quite noticeable on a larger display. I'm not sure if a cinema-style housing which is more streamlined and with more mass would further reduce those types of micro-jitters compared to a DSLR housing, which is both smaller and not particularly streamlined, especially once you start adding external arms and floats to combat it being negative. I think I'm pretty good at getting my DSLR-style rigs neutrally bouyant and as trimmed as possible, but that's not to say they will stay in whatever angle you put them in regardless of the angle -- usually the center of gravity of a DSLR rig underwater is not the same as the physical center of the rig because you've got parts which are floaty (the arms) and parts that are negative (lights, the camera body, wet lenses, etc.). So it's not as stable as a well-designed cinema housing with adjustable weights on rails. Thus, I think there's some value in IBIS to take care of the remaining micro-jitters, at least with DSLR-type rigs. These may not be apparent at phone or laptop screens, but they are when viewing the content on a TV or projector. That said, there's definitely also artifacts that can be introduced from IBIS. One type is edge warping from using rectilinear lenses wider than about 17-18mm equivalent. Another is weird jerks when the IBIS system and/or additional electronic stabilization reaches its limits because of too much movement and 'resets'. I'd be curious to see some samples of wide angle footage from a non-stabilized cinema rig like a RED or z-cam that's not on a tripod.
  14. To be honest, I don't see any difference in quality between the shot of the dolphins and the tiger shark. One doesn't look more clear or contrasty than the other, and there's nothing to say that the tiger shark is in focus and the dolphins are not. I think what you're seeing here as others have commented is the effect of 10'+ of water. Water is an awful filter that will destroy all contrast and resolution. The more of it you have between you and the subject, the worse the results. Both these shorts have subjects that are so distant that no lens or camera is going to make any difference in terms of the perceived contrast and resolution. If you're using any lens at 50mm+ (full frame equivalent) zoom to fill the frame with a pelagic subject, that means the subject is 15'+ feet away. You're not going to get good results in terms of sharpness and contrast with that much water between your lens and the subject regardless of how high quality your optics are. Most cameras are going to struggle with focus in such circumstances because the water column removes contrast. To reiterate, I don't think those two photos show that one lens is focusing on the subject properly and the other isn't. I'd say the focus is probably correct in both. I've tried various 14-42mm lenses on m43 behind the WWL-1, including the Oly 14-42 pancake. Differences are miniscule. I also ended up using the Panasonic 14-42mm II. Don't spend money upgrading your camera or optics for shots of large pelagics more than 15' away. You'll be dissapointed when your results do not improve. The only reason for using a focal length of 50mm+ underwater is to fill the frame with a smaller subject within 10' of your camera. Any further, and the results will be equally disappointing.
  15. Hi all, Looking to purchase either a Nauticam WACP-1 or WACP-2 lens in excellent optical condition. Other cosmetic scuffing isn't a problem. Specimens with optical damage will be considered on a case-by-case basis. PM me if you're looking to offload one. Thanks, Drei
×
×
  • Create New...