Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Maxheadspace

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location
    Washington, DC
  • Interests

Additional Info

  • Camera Model & Brand
    JVC GY-HD100, Sony HDR-HC1, Sony HC1000
  • Camera Housing
  1. I've been doing terrestrial 3D videography for a bit, but am finding the investment not paying off. Bought two HD cameras and built a platform. Sony Vegas Pro now makes the 3D production very straightforward and relatively simple to produce and tweak. The 3D results have been great, in my own opinion, but having excellent 3D doesn't matter if you can't find a deep enough audience. Even the major film producers, it seems, are not investing much in 3D for home use. I've purchased probably every 3D Blu-Ray movie ever made, yet my library is not that extensive. So, in my humble opinion, the great expense of developing an underwater 3D capability is not worth the investment. And in my further opinion, 3D camera systems that do not produce two separate video streams for editing (left/right eyes) are not really serious 3D anyway. Max
  2. A short video of a US Navy F4U fighter airplane that ditched off the coast of Oahu, Hawaii in 1945 after running out of gas. Sitting on the bottom in the sand, 105 feet down. Not in the video is a massive field of garden eels surrounding the plane that look like blades of grass coming out of the sand. When you swim near, they all shrink back in their holes in the sand. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52WWQrgGvEo
  3. Ed, some major considerations that I put top of my list after having had several camera/housing combinations is: 1. Manual white balance capability. 2. Low light specs. 3. MPEG2 rather than AVCHD compression (this is more just my personal preference, as AVCHD is a variety of MPEG4, which is much more compressed than MPEG2). After that, it's more a matter of controlling the camera and keeping it dry. Balance and ballast is important, too.
  4. I bought the Inon WA lens for my Sony HC1 in Ikelite housing. Works great. No vignetting. Have a couple years of HDV taping underwater, and am happy.
  5. I've been relatively successful at selling HD/HDV clips on Pond5 and iStock. Won't get rich, but a nice outlet for your work.
  6. Jon, did you use white balance with both cameras? I ask because with my HC1 the manual white balance is its biggest shortcoming, which usually results in substandard color underwater. That would make a big difference if one was white-balanced and the other not. I've never been impressed with the HC1's low-light performance, but wonder what your settings were for both cameras. Max.
  7. Even though the FX-7 is a bit smaller, and a bit cheaper, the features of the FX-1 make up for the shortcomings. Low light ability on the FX-7 are worse, due to the smaller lens (62mm v. 72mm) and the smaller imaging chips. The CMOS imaging chips are supposed to be better in good light, but the size of the CCD chips in the FX-1 give better low light performance. Also, why the 4:3 aspect CMOS imaging chips in the FX-7? That would seem to negate some of the improved resolution. The FX-1 is native 16:9. I know the FX-1 is a little larger and slightly more expensive, but I think it would be worthwhile. Good luck! Max
  8. A curse on underwater video, for sure. Taped an extensive series of scenes underwater once, only to find afterwards two bubbles on the lens that were impossible to ignore on the video. I always carry a soft rag with me and wipe my lens frequently, ALWAYS when I first submerge, and anytime I get near bubbles. I also learned to stay out of other divers' bubble streams. Those were notorious for leaving bubbles on the lens. As for focus, I often use autofocus if the water is clear. Otherwise, I focus on my feet/flippers manually underwater at the start, and leave it there for the duration. I realize you are taping under more difficult circumstances, with the water and bubbles constantly moving. About the only recommendation I can make is to wipe the lens often. As mentioned previously, some have success with anti-fogging compound. Good luck! Max.
  9. Yes, all good suggestions. I've used YouTube extensively, and have put stuff on Revver, Google Video, Vuze, and iFilm, but Stage6 seems to have best quality/resolution. Maybe I'll look at all of them again. Things do improve! Thanks Nick!
  10. Thanks for the reply, Nick! I do visit Stage6 periodically. The downside is that you have to download and install plug-ins to use Stage6. It does stream some fantastic quality video, though! Max
  11. Any suggestions on a good place to post high def video on-line for viewing? A free site would be optimal, but not mandatory. Thanks! Max
  12. I almost never use a viewfinder on my cameras. I use the Ikelite housings primarily, which have larger mirrors on the side to display the LCD screen from the cameras. More often than not, I have developed a sense for the pointing of the cameras, and don't often use the mirrors either. The viewfinders are so small that I can't keep up with what's going on in front of the camera through them. Now, I also don't have perfect vision, which makes it more difficult to use the viewfinder, but I do have perscription lenses on my mask. I like the idea of a monitor on the housing, but of course that adds to the cost of the housing in the long run. Max
  13. Having shifted most of my video equipment (cameras and production) over to the high definition side, I'm finding that there's not such a mad rush to get HD material on the market as I expected. Neither Blue Ray nor HD-DVD is taking off like I thought they would. I'm finding that most of the outlets for video are shifting rapidly to the smaller (very small) screens of iPods and cell phones. Imagine watching movies on your cell phone! That definitely does not require high definition. I've been shooting everything in HDV, but have been downgrading it all to SD to suit the available venues. Recently went with my son to Florida to film West Indies manatees. My son shot SD, and I used HDV. I pulled his together in a quick video, with only a few clips imported from my HDV footage. I put the video on Revver, and there is no way to tell the SD footage from the HDV material. Take a look: http://one.revver.com/watch/243701 Of course I realize that both SD and HDV formats are downgraded for this venue, but that's my point. Most opportunities are still fine with SD. I've had some of my products on local cable channels, but none of them could accept high definition material. So, having made the investment, I probably would have been OK so far with sticking to SD. Nonetheless, I still have all of my high definition tape waiting for Toshiba to finally put out an aftermarket HD-DVD disk burner. My fingers are crossed! Max.
  14. At 2000 feet down, it heard a voice in it's head, "swim into the light...." And then it died.
  15. I bought a used HC1 (for the same price as a new HC3) just so I could stay with HDV. I know it's not necessarily scientific, but there's this intuitive feeling in me that believes the AVCHD will yield more artifacts than HDV. Not saying it's fact, but it just seems that the compression in MPEG4 will cause problems with fast moving objects, or rapid pans in high definition. I'll hold out with HDV a little longer till things sort out.
  • Create New...