Davide DB

Hi Giacomo, I see your point about the horizontal resolution being 5.3K in both cases, but mathematically, the 'No quality loss' claim doesn't hold up once you look at the total pixel count the encoder has to process within the same 120 Mbps limit. Here is why 16:9 Native is technically superior to 8:7 cropped to 16:9. The Math of the Canvas: 5.3K 16:9 Native: about 15.8 Million pixels (5312 x 2988). 5.3K 8:7 Full Sensor: about 24.7 Million pixels (5312 x 4648). When you record in 8:7, the camera is dedicating a huge chunk of those 120 Mbps to the top and bottom areas of the senso. That are areas you are going to crop away anyway. In 16:9 Native, the encoder doesn't 'see' those extra pixels, so it can spend the entire 120Mbps budget only on the 16:9 frame Finally, in the 16:9 Native file, each pixel in your final frame has roughly 56% more data allocated to it compared to the same area inside an 8:7 file. You aren't wasting bitrate on pixels you're just going to delete in post! On a lighter note: It's like buying a pizza for 3 people (8:7) instead of 2 (16:9), while using the exact same amount of dough. The slices will inevitably be thinner! 🍕 P.S. My reference to 'Ludicrous Speed' was just a quote from Spaceballs movie (Velocità smodata - Balle Spaziali) 😁

New Sony FE 100 mm F2.8 Macro GM OSS lens focus gear anyone? 😈

Custom knobs and custom caps added!

Amazing work indeed! I look forward to read the entire story on a new thread or even an article. Thanks for sharing

Please, if you didn't like the tests that were done: Stick to the facts and don't get personal. Raise your doubts politely in the specific thread. The goal is to have a constructive exchange of ideas, so let's keep the discussion professional and helpful for everyone.

It's not a strange thing. It's math. I'm splitting hairs here but saying there is "no quality loss" just because the bitrate is the same is a common misconception. Here is the math: 4K (16:9) = about 8.3 Million pixels per frame. 5.3K (8:7) = about 24.7 Million pixels per frame. While the bitrate is capped at 120Mbps (*) for both, the 5.3K 8:7 mode has to manage nearly 3x more pixels than 4K. Think of bitrate as your "data budget." In 4K, each pixel gets a larger slice of that 120Mbps pie. In 5.3K 8:7, you are spreading that same amount of data much thinner across a much larger canvas. Does this mean 5.3K 8:7 is "bad"? Not at all. Its strength isn't pure image fidelity, but versatility: You can crop a 9:16 vertical for TikTok and a 16:9 for YouTube from the same clip without losing vertical resolution. Stabilization: It gives HyperSmooth more sensor "real estate" to work with, resulting in better stabilization with less aggressive cropping. (*) Even using the 190Mbps ludicrous speed of Gopro labs FW, the math doesn't change

I'll add some other thoughts: Set HDMI Output Res to 1080p (instead of Auto). You tried this already. Disable HDMI Rec Control in the HDMI connection menu. The GH7 sends a digital "trigger" signal through the HDMI cable to tell an external recorder to start. A simple SmallHD doesn't know what to do with this command and often glitches or loses the sync. ensure HDMI Info Display (Rec) is set to ON. Try a different cable.

Nope. I can 100% confirm you that the external monitor via HDMi works flawlessly with GH6 and GH7. There is something else at play there. If you find a pc monitor or a laptop, you can test your GH7 HDMI out and your SmallHD monitor alone

No GH7 here but a long time Pana user. Did you enable the HDMI output downscaling? By default my GH5 output on HDMI the same resolution and framerate I'm recording to but not all monitors accept UHD or 4K signal. And most of them accept max 4K@30p. My GH5 HDMI is set to 1080p regardless of my recording resolution. If you have a normal desktop pc monitor or a TV, just try your camera on them, possibly with another normal HDMI cable.

Added to our DIYpedia Thanks

Added to our DIYpedia

Hi Richard! I remember you very well from WetPixel. Welcome to your new home!!! I hope to see some of your work soon and start some very interesting technical discussions! Ciao

Great job, beautiful video and so many species captured! Tell us more about the gear you used. Question: since the video is just music and images, wouldn't it be better to have several shorter videos instead of one single long-form piece? Thanks for sharing!

Hi Kiliii, Welcome onboard! We hope you will enjoy the forum. Ciao

DOOMSDAY DEVICE!!!

It must be a pleasure diving and, while on the boat, handling this configuration 😁

Looking forward to see some test Macroview Vs MFO-3! And don't forget the price!

To be fair and look at both sides of the coin, I think it’s important to mention the study by Gallagher & Hammerschlag (2011). Their research highlights the 'Conservation Shield' provided by the shark diving industry, showing that a single reef shark in the Bahamas is worth about $250,000 USD in tourism revenue over its lifetime, compared to just $50-$100 USD if killed for its fins. This economic reality was a massive win for conservation. It gave governments a concrete reason to create Shark Sanctuaries and protect these animals from overfishing. The core argument was simple: a shark with slightly altered behavior is still much better off than a dead shark. However, while I agree with the importance of that study, we have to remember it was published in 2011. Now, in 2026, the context has shifted significantly. Back then, the "economic shield" was a desperate and necessary tool to stop the immediate slaughter of sharks. It worked, and many populations stabilized as a result. But after 15 years, we have to ask ourselves: are we still doing this for conservation, or has it just become a mature, high-profit business? At what point does 'saving the sharks' stop being a valid excuse for turning a wild ecosystem into a controlled photo studio? In 2026, we have better technology, better-managed Marine Protected Areas, and many examples of 'Blue Tourism' that don't rely on feeding to be successful. The conservation argument was a vital starting point, but it shouldn't be a permanent license to ignore anthropogenic impact indefinitely. It’s a tough balance, but I believe it's time to move past 15-year-old justifications and aim for a more ethical interaction with these apex predators.

Thanks for the feedback. I want to clarify that I’m not a marine biologist, but after seeing some comments, I did some research on Google Scholar to see what the peer-reviewed data actually says. It’s true that the scientific community isn’t unanimous, and the debate is quite complex. On one hand, some studies suggest that the impact might be limited. For example: Hammerschlag et al. (2012) found that despite frequent feeding at Tiger Beach (Bahamas), tiger sharks still maintain their long-distance migratory patterns. Gallagher & Hammerschlag (2011) argue that the economic value of shark tourism provides a vital 'conservation shield' against the much greater threat of overfishing. On the other hand, there is significant evidence of localized behavioral changes: Vertical Shift in Bull Sharks (Carcharhinus leucas) - Fiji: Research by Brunnschweiler and Barnett (2010) showed that these sharks completely changed their vertical distribution and space use to match feeding schedules. Social Aggression in Grey Reef Sharks (Carcharhinus amblyrhynchos) - Australia: Fitzpatrick et al. (2011) documented increased intra-specific aggression and injuries due to the 'conditioned response' triggered by feeding. Health Concerns: Some studies (like those in Oslob regarding Whale Sharks) show that a human-provided diet can lead to nutritional deficiencies compared to their natural, more varied diet. Ultimately, while science may not have proven catastrophic long-term damage to entire populations yet, from an ethological standpoint, altering the routine of an apex predator is rarely 'zero cost.' To me, the real question isn't just whether the shark survives, but whether it’s right to turn a wild animal into a conditioned one for our own entertainment and photography. I believe we should base our community's ethics on both our passion and this kind of scientific precaution.

Like underwater, more or less 😛

Hi David, Welcome aboard!

I know this is a sensitive topic, and I’m not here to judge anyone. I know many people in this community enjoy these dives and will keep doing them. I’ll admit, the photos you can get are amazing and it's very tempting, but personally, I’ve decided not to do them. We often talk about how photographers (or simply divers) affect the ocean. For example, everyone seems to agree with the new rules in Thailand about diver experience, or the fact that we can't wear gloves in the Red Sea. No one complains about those rules. But let’s be honest: shark feeding changes how these animals behave. In the end, it’s all part of what we call human impact on nature. The classic justification for these dives has always been that they help debunk negative myths about sharks. But guys, we are all adults now and it’s 2026. Does that still make sense? To change the subject, Shark Week, which used the same justification, continues to cause a lot of damage IMHO. I’d love to hear what you think about this 😇

A huge thanks to everyone supporting our project by buying merchandise from our site ❤️

Your monitor has a nice flat surface on the back. Perfect for some DIY float! The ideal theoretical situation would be one where moving the lights does not change the trim at all. Unfortunately, cameras are small and have a form factor optimized for taking photos rather than shooting video like camcorders. As a result, we all end up with a sort of 'M-configuration' or something close to it. The first approach would be to make the lights neutral or nearly neutral. Keldan offers very expensive floats for their lights 😃 Another way is to move the floats onto the housing itself, AKA place the foam as close as possible to the center of gravity. It is an almost impractical option for mirrorless cameras, but in your case, with the sled, you have plenty of space. If you can find some closed-cell PVC foam, you can cut and shape it however you like. If you search the forum, we have discussed this quite a bit in the past.

Wow, I didn't imagine you would encounter blue sharks that large there. I'm not a fan of slow motion; yes, perhaps with some faster cuts you could keep it under 3 minutes. The images are very beautiful. I like: the sun rays piercing the water the pastel blue color, which is absolutely not 'electric'. the backlit shots don't have that 'evil' magenta that often appears with compressed codecs. Did you use N-Raw? Did you set the White Balance (WB) underwater or in post-production? I noticed from the kit and the lighting on the shark that you are using Keldan blue filters. Did you use a Spectrum filter on the lens? What type? From the video, I can't tell what depth you are at. Thank you in advance