Jump to content

bullshark reef

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About bullshark reef

  • Rank
    Sea Nettle

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
  • Camera Model & Brand
    Sony TRV 33
  • Camera Housing
    Amphibico divebuddy
  • Strobe/Lighting Model & Brand
    self made HIDs
  • Accessories
  1. Yeah, I meant all the padding is held by velcro, which I ended up sewing because it was getting undone all the time, especially on the shoulder. The other problem I have with it is more related to the dive condition; I dive mostly cold water with a dry suit, which means I need lots of weight, and all that weight in the front pocket is just too much. First because the pockets are getting ripped all the time, I'm on my third pairs (they're kind of cheap), then all that weight in front does nothing good for my balance, so I bolted 2 pouch filled with lead shot on the back, about 6 pounds, it helps but it's still not enough. The other thing is I just don't feel it's solid enough for diving double which I want to go into, it doesn't inspire me confidence. I often dive with a single steel 120, but it's kind of heavy (and all the weight is along my spine) and long and I think double would make the weight distribution better and the added redundancy is always nice. I think an SS backplate would suits my diving condition and style better (better weight distribution, more place to bolt equipement on etc), that's why I'm a bit disapointed with my purchase.
  2. I've been diving with a DiveRite Transpac for a few years, and frankly I don't like it much, only keeping with it 'cause it cost me much money. I like the wings, to me it spells total comfort and freedom of movement under water, but the harness itself hold together by velcro and I had much trouble with it. I'm going to go with an SS backplate+harness next, thinking about this one http://www.hammerheadscuba.com/ and keeping the transpac bladder which is fine. One thing is sure, I'm never going back to a vest type of BC.
  3. Thanks, but I can't see those, needs Quicktime7 which doesn't work at all on my system.[edit]I was able to see those using the free VLC player; yes they're gorgeous but, as it's been pointed out, there's more to it than just a good camera I think.[/edit] And, pardon for asking, but what set top DVD player could play those? Is there any yet? Or a TV set with 1440/1080 resolution? I'm really wondering, what's the point of shooting HD if, as of yet, there's no way for your audience to get the full resolution. Is HD downsampled to DVD resolution better than DV25? Are images from an FX1 shot in DV25 mode better than a 3 chips regular DV25 cam? Or do peoples edit HD then downsample at render time for DVDs and this way gets better images (if better quality is defined as less grain and wider dynamic range)? Anyway, those are all questions I'm asking myself now to prepare for the choices I'll have to make before summer comes around. What I see though is that they'll probably be a slew of DV25 3 chippers package coming to the used market as peoples upgrades to HD, I might just end up springing for that at the last minutes instead.
  4. Well, here's the spec I went by: FX1 camera weight: 4.5 lb Gates housing: 22 lb Total: 26.5 lb A1U camera weight: 1.8 lb Gates housing: 10.1 lb Total: 11.9 lb Acrylic Port would add about 1.5 lb to the package, 4.1 lb for the glass SWP44 Fathom (which is at a bargain bin price of $4500.00). The extra 15 lb didn't ring at first like such a big deal, but like I said I haven't handled them so it could make a huge difference. Yes, ports choices is extremely limited for the FX compared to the A1, don't know where that come from but it's certainly a big plus in favor of the A1, to the point that it almost rules out the FX for me as a package choice. I'm in Canada, but either way I don't think the rebate is worldwide, US local only AFAIK, so can't really be used in a price comparaison on an international forum. Anyway, found the B&H listing for the A1U, it's $2699.00 with an "email me a better price" option, probably the $2499.00 price that was refered to. I'm just trying to make sense of the choices offered, I'm not even sure HD is really worth it at this time considering output would be NTSC DVD @ 720x480. Would any of the HD package offer better quality than, say, a PD170 if you're shooting DV25?
  5. There's so little difference in price between the FX1 and the A1, is it only the smaller footprint and weight that makes the A1 attractive? B&H list the FX1 for $3000.00, they don't list the A1 at all, so I went to Armatos and they list $2895.00 for the A1; a difference of only $105.00. Housing are more expensive for the FX though: B&H list the Gates FX1 housing for $3990.00, the Gates A1 housing for $2894.50 (both with no ports, I know you need ports but this is just for comparison sake). I got to admit, the FX1 package looks like a lot more value for money, but I haven't handled the Gates FX/A1 housing, maybe that would change my mind.
  6. That's ok, if people who switched to digital could tell me why they switched over that'll be great also, especially those who ditched Nikonos. I'm an experienced amateur photographer, but topside, never took a shot below; when I started wanting to "take pictures" below, I immediately went to video. Back when I started checking digital camera, digital camera were extremely expensive, something like $15 000 for a simple kit, they were then very slow for taking bracket shot and dynamic range was very bad when compared to film. Also, what you saved on film expenditure, you had to pay on batteries and getting prints from digital was also 3 times more expensive than from negative or slides. I'm guessing all this has changed by now? I didn't see this question as "film versus digital", more like "what's the most cost efficient way to get the job done", but now it kind of make sense to start with that... So, should I go digital or film, and why?
  7. +1 Propably the fastest NLE around, and without par for audio work. When I tried it 3 years ago, I immediately ditched Premiere (which was a bug fest then, don't know if it improved since) and never looked back; I never even finished what I was working on at the time, just put the Matrox+software on ebay and restarted the project from scratch in Vegas.
  8. We need UW photograph for promotional material, so many options for equipements I need suggestions. We have a Nikon N65 with all the trimming for topside photography, I could get a housing and port for it. It could get very expensive very fast going that route it seems, and frankly, I don't like that camera at all to begin with (got it to replace a minolta X370 when all the lens for it got stolen; I whish now I had just replaced the lens and kept the Minolta). Still, would that be a good option? Another option is to go the Nikonos road. Those seems to be a dime a dozen on ebay nowadays, anything wrong with them? Digital...Do I really need digital? If so, where would I go, and why is it better than film and scanner? Would something like the Canon digital rebel housed in an Ikelite housing make a nice kit? Appreciate all suggestion, thanks.
  9. Thanks for all the inputs guys. It is the steady shot function which is the culprit, when I made test topside I couldn't see the effect because I was just looking at the viewfinder, but when I recorded and imported footage in my NLE I was able to see the same vignetting. I was wrongly assuming the viewfinder to be full frame when I was testing (duh). So, solution turn out simple, either switch steady shot off or keep it on but zoom in a little. Again thanks, I really was scratching my head with this one.
  10. Do you dive with "steadyshot" on on the camera? And it does seem to be worst the deeper I go strangely enough. Shaking the housing in my pool did give me some vignetting, but nowhere near as extreme as what I'm getting at depth nor did it behave the same. /Martin.
  11. In my own test trying to replicate this at home, steady shot had to be on; so I'm pretty sure it is somewhat related, I just don't know if its a camera defect and if it is , how to go about getting this looked at, or if it's just the nature of the beast. And I haven't tried getting footage at depth with steady shot "off" so I'm not quite sure it is in fact the problem. If you've looked at the footage, you can see that the vignetting is very sharp; any attempts I made at moving the camera inside the housing, or getting thing in front of the lens resulted in blurry and fuzzy looking obstruction, not the kind of sharp vignetting I get in my footage. Is that what you're getting also with your FX1? No, it's the stand alone bayonnet mount. Thanks for the reply, and thanks to the mod for moving to the appropriate forum (honnest mistake on my part, I'm kind of new around here...) /Martin
  12. Hi, I dive with a Sony TRV 33 housed in an Amphibico Dive buddy. When I use the 120° WA port, I get strange vignetting. Strange because it's intermittent, the vignetting moves slowly in and out of the image. I posted a small demo of what I'm refering to here 208 KB WMV. You will see that when I bump my shoulder and the unit moves , vignetting appears and then slowly resides. Please note that the camera is absolutely and positively NOT moving within the housing (it's the first answer I always get, getting annoying as it's obviously the very first thing I checked, and check I did many many times). I was able to replicate it somewhat: If the camera "steady-shot" is on and the unit is underwater and the unit is vibrating or shaken sharply and alignement of the camera withing the housing is not absolutely perfect. I say somewhat because even with all those condition, the vignetting I get topside doesn't behave like it does on footage taken at depth. I'm at a lost to explain this, anybody seen something like this before? Or any suggestion as to who I could consult to help me solve this (please don't say Amphibico...). Thanks.
  • Create New...