Sunday afternoon, all summer long.

[Crusader]

The camera James uses for all his videos is more than 10 years old.

 

[ChryslerJet]

The camera James uses for all his videos is more than 10 years old.

Hey it still works right?  I take hand me downs. lol

 

[txliberator]

Sweet vid Matt!

 

[blazeracer]

It's not about the Jones'. I shoot a lot of vids and I know peeps would love to see them in HD on a BluRay player. My video camera is not that old Cliff. I think I bought it in 2008, maybe 2007. It works great but it's not in HD, and that's pretty much the standard now. Mine will work for the rest of the year. This will be on my Christmas list. I'll probably stick with a Sony too since I'm familiar with their software operation and have a high dollar underwater housing that will only work with a Sony Handycam.

Anyway, got a few pics from last Sunday.

 

[Crusader]

Ahhh, I thought I heard you say it was ten years old on Sunday when they were talking about Matt's GoPro.....wasn't busting on ya bro.

Great pics BTW.

 

[Last Mohecian]

It's not about the Jones'. I shoot a lot of vids and I know peeps would love to see them in HD on a BluRay player. My video camera is not that old Cliff. I think I bought it in 2008, maybe 2007. It works great but it's not in HD, and that's pretty much the standard now. Mine will work for the rest of the year. This will be on my Christmas list. I'll probably stick with a Sony too since I'm familiar with their software operation and have a high dollar underwater housing that will only work with a Sony Handycam.

Anyway, got a few pics from last Sunday.

Do a little research before you buy.  That underwater housing is made to shoot under water.  While it will work above water the lens is made to correct for refraction under water.  In other words the video will be distorted in air.  While it is not that noticeable in SD it may be much more noticeable in HD.  I am not claiming to be an expert in this field.  Just recommending you do the research before you buy.  There is a big difference in a water proof and an under water housing.

 

[ChryslerJet]

It's not about the Jones'. I shoot a lot of vids and I know peeps would love to see them in HD on a BluRay player. My video camera is not that old Cliff. I think I bought it in 2008, maybe 2007. It works great but it's not in HD, and that's pretty much the standard now. Mine will work for the rest of the year. This will be on my Christmas list. I'll probably stick with a Sony too since I'm familiar with their software operation and have a high dollar underwater housing that will only work with a Sony Handycam.

Anyway, got a few pics from last Sunday.

Hey I understand everyone has their standards it definitely would be a nice Christmas gift.
I second what Matt said about the underwater case versus waterproof case.  If its a water proof case it will look a little distorted underwater if its a underwater case it will look a little distorted above water.  Just something to think about when making that Christmas wish list.

 

[Captin Hazlewood]

Matt, I guess you are referring to the GOPRO dive housing... I wish they would have had that item 5 months ago... my underwater pics suck....
http://gopro.com/hd-hero-accessories/dive-housing/

 

[Last Mohecian]

For the GoPro yes. The same applies to any camera not just the GoPro. Many dive housings also incorporate a rose filter to compensate for red being the first color out of the light spectrum to be absorbed by water.

 

[Captin Hazlewood]

Color is not the issue so much as the fisheye effect underwater seriously degrades the picture quality, aka focus. So yep it looks like that housing came out around May this year. Should we get one of those 3D housings and make some 3D vids?

 

[Last Mohecian]

Color is not the issue so much as the fisheye effect underwater seriously degrades the picture quality, aka focus. So yep it looks like that housing came out around May this year. Should we get one of those 3D housings and make some 3D vids?

I wonder how well that 3D housing works.

 

[blazeracer]

Do a little research before you buy.  That underwater housing is made to shoot under water.  While it will work above water the lens is made to correct for refraction under water.  In other words the video will be distorted in air.  While it is not that noticeable in SD it may be much more noticeable in HD.  I am not claiming to be an expert in this field.  Just recommending you do the research before you buy.  There is a big difference in a water proof and an under water housing.

I bought it in 2008. Works great underwater.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/540098-REG/Sony_SPK_HCD_SPK_HCD_Underwater_Camcorder_Sports.html

All controls work underwater, has a view finder that works underwater, and three refraction lenses for different conditions, and an underwater microphone. Supposedly the new Handycams are backward compatible with it.

EDIT: Not backward compatible. The new housing costs more than the camera does, but IMO, Sony is the cat's meow for going underwater. My current SD camera with the housing looks AWESOME underwater. I have vid from Roatan swimming with sea turtles.

 

[Last Mohecian]

Do a little research before you buy.  That underwater housing is made to shoot under water.  While it will work above water the lens is made to correct for refraction under water.  In other words the video will be distorted in air.  While it is not that noticeable in SD it may be much more noticeable in HD.  I am not claiming to be an expert in this field.  Just recommending you do the research before you buy.  There is a big difference in a water proof and an under water housing.

I bought it in 2008. Works great underwater.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/540098-REG/Sony_SPK_HCD_SPK_HCD_Underwater_Camcorder_Sports.html

All controls work underwater, has a view finder that works underwater, and three refraction lenses for different conditions, and an underwater microphone. Supposedly the new Handycams are backward compatible with it.

EDIT: Not backward compatible. The new housing costs more than the camera does, but IMO, Sony is the cat's meow for going underwater. My current SD camera with the housing looks AWESOME underwater. I have vid from Roatan swimming with sea turtles.

I agree completely IF you are shooting under water.  If you use that housing and shoot above water however the image is distorted.  To shoot above water you would have to take it out of the  housing to get the best image quality.  I think you do that anyway.  bad thing is, if you drop it in the lake or soak it like what happened to me when Kurt sprayed us, you camera most likely will be toast.  I think we are saying the same thing just in different ways.

 

[Crusader]

Kurt sprayed us last night at Hubbard, soaked the boat interior down and I lost my electronics.

 

[blazeracer]

I agree completely IF you are shooting under water.  If you use that housing and shoot above water however the image is distorted.  To shoot above water you would have to take it out of the  housing to get the best image quality.  I think you do that anyway.  bad thing is, if you drop it in the lake or soak it like what happened to me when Kurt sprayed us, you camera most likely will be toast.  I think we are saying the same thing just in different ways.

Ok, I see what you are saying now. The refraction lens on the Sony setup attached to the camera itelf inside the housing. You can take it off to use it out of the water. For instance, we want to a very large waterfall one time and there so much spray at the bottom everything was soaked constantly. In that instance I used the case without the refraction lens.

Here's a pic of the camera, the lens, and the housing.

I have been hosed down before with the camera in hand and very quickly got it under my shirt as soon as I saw the roost coming. I took a ride in Wakemakers v-drive at Somerville. It broke and we had to get towed in with a jet. All the time when I'm filming out on the water I'm thinking I need the housing, but alas it lives on the shelf in the closet. I'll bring it to Tawakoni tomorrow. The trip to Arkansas got pushed back two weeks.

 

[boatlessbrett]

I have a Olympus tough it's waterproof will take hd movies above and below the water and good pics above and below as well no case needed love it.

 

[blazeracer]

I have a Olympus tough it's waterproof will take hd movies above and below the water and good pics above and below as well no case needed love it.

I don't think you do. Never once seen a video. LOL

AKA: Get a YouTube account!!

 

[Last Mohecian]

I have a Olympus tough it's waterproof will take hd movies above and below the water and good pics above and below as well no case needed love it.

I am sure it shoots great Bret but if you think it takes good pics below the water now, you should see what happens with the proper lens.  The difference is huge.  You either get awesome above or awesome below.  No camera can do both without a lens change.  Many can do acceptable on both but to make both acceptable you sacrifice some on either side.  Remember, We all used to think SD TV looked great until HD came around.  Once you see what a professional camera can do under water with the correct lens and filter you see what you have been missing.  But again, A camera setup to shoot underwater does not work as well above water.

Again, I am not knocking any ones equipment.  Just throwing the info out there for people to check into when it comes time to replace or upgrade.

 

[Last Mohecian]

I agree completely IF you are shooting under water.  If you use that housing and shoot above water however the image is distorted.  To shoot above water you would have to take it out of the  housing to get the best image quality.  I think you do that anyway.  bad thing is, if you drop it in the lake or soak it like what happened to me when Kurt sprayed us, you camera most likely will be toast.  I think we are saying the same thing just in different ways.

Ok, I see what you are saying now. The refraction lens on the Sony setup attached to the camera itelf inside the housing. You can take it off to use it out of the water. For instance, we want to a very large waterfall one time and there so much spray at the bottom everything was soaked constantly. In that instance I used the case without the refraction lens.

Here's a pic of the camera, the lens, and the housing.

I have been hosed down before with the camera in hand and very quickly got it under my shirt as soon as I saw the roost coming. I took a ride in Wakemakers v-drive at Somerville. It broke and we had to get towed in with a jet. All the time when I'm filming out on the water I'm thinking I need the housing, but alas it lives on the shelf in the closet. I'll bring it to Tawakoni tomorrow. The trip to Arkansas got pushed back two weeks.

Ah.  There is the difference.  That makes total sense.  You can leave the refractive lens out and shoot on land.  You should try a rose filter sometime under water.  You might be surprised at the difference it makes as well.

 

[WAFOBABY]

Well I dont have one that would take underwater pics hell is there a lake in tx you can see under water ?    But I have a NICE NICE camera that takes pics above water.            Cliff sounds like a pay back is coming soon  :grin:!