WIRED -> DJ Roller's 3D Underwater 'The Last Reef"

[Clark Dunbar]

WIRED Magazine's Online version just published a short article on DJ Roller and his 3D film - "The Last Reef" shot on RED using his custom 3D Underwater rig.... the article chopped out the paragraph on the use of REDs.... but some nice pce from the production and the rig

Nice article feature in WIRED!

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/01/pl_last_reef/

[Pedro Guimaraes]

I think that's liquid pictures housing/rig

[Clark Dunbar]

Yes -> DJ Roller = Liquid Pictures

[KETCH ROSSi]

Yeah they did a great work, but still waiting so anxiously to get our DEEP ATOM form Gates and ET,
to put tour EPIC cameras underwater, such a compact and light 3D Underwater rig, it will be amazingly
easier to use and capture different images even in closer proximities and smaller caves.

[Rich Schaefer]

Very cool. I do wish the vid was in 3d.

[David Cole]

Gotta hand it to Liquid Pictures on this pioneering work. Looks like it has inspired a number of very similar rig/housing projects. Imitation = flattery!

I got a sneak peak at the Liquid Pictures Gen 2 recently... it's obvious that they used the 2 years of experience WELL to refine their design. Refined to Epic proportions :-)

[Pawel Achtel]

It is the first underwater 3D Imax shot with a beam splitter. I believe all other were shot with side-by-side rigs.
I also think it is the first underwater IMAX shot with RED cameras. Should be interesting to watch.
Screening at LG IMAX theatre, Darling Harbour, Sydney, tomorrow at 17:30. See you there.

[Pawel Achtel]

I just came back from a private screening of "The Last Reef" at the LG IMAX theatre in Darling Harbour.

It is heartbreaking to write a review of a conservation underwater film which is done poorly. So, what went wrong?
In a word: just about everything.

1. The biggest let down is that the film has no story. The narration preaches some environmental messages, but the images do not reflect what is said and do not have any continuity. The viewer's perception is of a random sequence of images cut and mixed together, displayed in random order. There was no animal behaviour shown and there was not a single sequence. (One usually needs at least 10-14 good sequences where something happened, linked together to call it a film).

2. The camera operation was very shaky and random. Framing was bad, with clips cut such the subjects appeared at different edges of the screen forcing the eyes to go from top to bottom, left to right and back. This and the lack of continuity of movement and some basic mistakes in editing made for a very difficult and painful viewing. After five minutes my eyes were watering and very strained.

3. The focus was nearly always off....way off!

4. I was surprised how soft the entire footage looked. Not just in the corners, but on the entire frame. I have seen sharper HD images, much sharper.

5. The footage was often noisy with fixed noise pattern (like a grid) showing clearly. As it appeared to be most often a red pattern, I assumed that the red channel was underexposed greatly and brought up in post.

6. Time Lapse sequences shot on land were disruptive and difficult on the eyes. I think this is because they must have been shot with short shutter speed, but also seemed displaced and disjoint when cut with underwater sequences. Where is Tom Lowe when you need him?

7. The stereoscopic effect worked some of the time (nudibranchs), but most of the time the eye strain was just too much. Composition of foreground and background subjects was often unfortunate and I had great difficulty fusing the images. Most wide and medium angles were very straining on the eyes.

I'd like to find some positives, I'm sure there are some, but I'm overwhelmed with the negatives and need to dig deep. I liked some super macro shots and, although quite soft across the entire frame and often shaky, the 3D effect looked quite good on the large screen. The encounter with manta rays was nice and usually framed well.

It is really disappointing. I wish I could say that I loved it, but I didn't. It was really bad film badly done and I'm sad that it is an underwater nature film, which I always stand for, promote and adore.

Oh, forgot to mention: it was shot on Red Ones with the first beam splitter housing, not that any of it mattered :(

[jimhare]

Sorry to hear that Pawel, but thanks for posting. I tried to make it there last night but just didn't happen in the end.

I know that you, like all of us, want Red to shine and stand out underwater so it must have been difficult to write that review.

Anything you can boil down to errors in post or even projection, or did the things you saw happen at the rig and sensor level in your opinion?

[Pawel Achtel]

Thanks Jim, I hope you will be able see it soon. It is still worth watching.

I guess I was initially curious to see how the beam splitter and flat port performed on a giant screen. And, I must say that super macro shots looked quite good from the point of view of the 3D effect and scale. The lack of sharpness actually didn't detract me that much from the overall experience. And, what I was skeptical about, turned up not too bad actually. The manta sequences were nice too, even if the focus was in the wrong spots.

I think the main let down was in basic film making process. I guess we are used to so many interesting, quirky and unexpected sequences shown by so many known and less known producers: Howard Hall, Bob Cranston, BBC and, in particular David Hannan. The reason I highlighted Dave is that he often shoots music films with no narration at all, yet the sequences and images always keep me engaged and there is a captivating story in how they are put together in a film. I love them all.

The editing was random, at best. For example, some basic rules, like continuity of movement, framing of the main subject between the shots and continuity of a sequence were all violated on most cuts.

But, the main problem was the story, or the lack of it.