I want to buy a 4k camera for video

[bernyneedshelp]

Consider a polarizer filter to cut reflections and glare on the glass. Of course, these filters also cut light about one to two stops.

Oh great thanks, hadn't thought of that.

 

[bernyneedshelp]

Consider a polarizer filter to cut reflections and glare on the glass. Of course, these filters also cut light about one to two stops.

If you have the chance to control the light, I would go without an additional filter. A tank is rather small and placing the lights accordingly, and using flags of dark cloth to keep the light from spilling wouldn´t leave any reflections.

How would you place the cloth? Because I would still be in the shot and so would the camera, or am I not understanding correctly? Do you know any videos I can watch?

Thanks for all the help btw.

 

[photo1x1.com]

Consider a polarizer filter to cut reflections and glare on the glass. Of course, these filters also cut light about one to two stops.

If you have the chance to control the light, I would go without an additional filter. A tank is rather small and placing the lights accordingly, and using flags of dark cloth to keep the light from spilling wouldn´t leave any reflections.

How would you place the cloth? Because I would still be in the shot and so would the camera, or am I not understanding correctly? Do you know any videos I can watch?

Thanks for all the help btw.

You are welcome .
Here is a draft.

1. Make sure your room is dark (night?)
   
2. Bring the lights as close to your tank as possible. That will light the tank so much brighter than the reflections of your room, that the inverse square law (twice the distance, half as bright) will make the reflections invisible (except you have a very tiny room)
3. Place the lights in an angle so that the reflection of the light will not be visible in the camera. As an alternative you can also light from the top only, that would make things easier. Just cover the area from the tank up to your lights with a neutral colored cardboard to prevent light spill.
   
4. Put one piece of black cloth (you may also try black paper) 90° to the front glass on each side of the camera, so that it is in some sort of corridor - place it well behind the opening, but of course don´t forget about the viewing angle - you want the tank in the footage, not the cloth . Black cloth still reflects, but since it is 90° to the tank, it won't. That should already do the trick. If not, cut a hole for the lens into another piece of cloth and place it in front of the camera.
5. Then check whether there are still reflections visible in the glass (in the video, not with your eye). If there are, you need to keep the light from hitting the room with cardboard, etc.

I hope I didn´t forget anything. There once was a japanese photographer who took amazing images of his freshwater tanks. His name was Takashi Amano. I was googleing some behind the scenes pictures, but couldn´t find some.

 

[bernyneedshelp]

Consider a polarizer filter to cut reflections and glare on the glass. Of course, these filters also cut light about one to two stops.

If you have the chance to control the light, I would go without an additional filter. A tank is rather small and placing the lights accordingly, and using flags of dark cloth to keep the light from spilling wouldn´t leave any reflections.

How would you place the cloth? Because I would still be in the shot and so would the camera, or am I not understanding correctly? Do you know any videos I can watch?

Thanks for all the help btw.

You are welcome .
Here is a draft.

1. Make sure your room is dark (night?)
   
2. Bring the lights as close to your tank as possible. That will light the tank so much brighter than the reflections of your room, that the inverse square law (twice the distance, half as bright) will make the reflections invisible (except you have a very tiny room)
3. Place the lights in an angle so that the reflection of the light will not be visible in the camera. As an alternative you can also light from the top only, that would make things easier. Just cover the area from the tank up to your lights with a neutral colored cardboard to prevent light spill.
   
4. Put one piece of black cloth (you may also try black paper) 90° to the front glass on each side of the camera, so that it is in some sort of corridor - place it well behind the opening, but of course don´t forget about the viewing angle - you want the tank in the footage, not the cloth . Black cloth still reflects, but since it is 90° to the tank, it won't. That should already do the trick. If not, cut a hole for the lens into another piece of cloth and place it in front of the camera.
5. Then check whether there are still reflections visible in the glass (in the video, not with your eye). If there are, you need to keep the light from hitting the room with cardboard, etc.

I hope I didn´t forget anything. There once was a japanese photographer who took amazing images of his freshwater tanks. His name was Takashi Amano. I was googleing some behind the scenes pictures, but couldn´t find some.

awesome thanks.

 

[480sparky]

 

[photo1x1.com]

A great example. But then again that is a very specific use. Other advantages of CMOS sensor cameras with rolling shutter, like low light capabilities and shallow depth are way more often used and needed. I wouldn´t want to sacrifice that for these rarely used special occasions when you film oscillations.
More often you see effects like lightning that do make the rolling shutter more visible, but again that is not everyday use and I prefer the rest of my footage to have that "DSLR-Look" instead.

But that is my preference and I think it is great you raise those issues so that people can decide what is important for them.

 

[480sparky]

A great example. But then again that is a very specific use. .........

How many more 'specific uses' would you like to see?

 

[photo1x1.com]

A great example. But then again that is a very specific use. .........

How many more 'specific uses' would you like to see?

... (forum won´t let me post more than 5 media, so I had to remove these from your post - please watch the videos in the post above)

Let me check:

• first video: if you want your film to look somewhat professional, you´d always choose a shutterspeed of 1/2 x fps - so in Europe (PAL) that´s 1/50th, in the US (NTSC) that´s 1/60th so that´s not a big deal with these settings.
  of course that would require ND filters outdoor, which not many are using. But if the OP is going the more professional route which I think he will, he´d consider that. Other than that he will be indoors, not on a plane and have no issues to set 1/50th without ND filters.
  
• two and three - well yes that happens if somebody is wildly rotating the camera on a tripod left and right - I´d say that is specific use . Sure it does happen going only one direction too, but you´d only do that for a very short time - maybe a second or even a fraction. Otherwise you´ll end up with a sick audience. And that second, maybe 1 or 2 percent of your audience will realize (especially if you are filming in a way that the audience doesn´t concentrate too much on the background)
  
• fourth video: at 1:45 the speaker says: "at first glance it looks both cameras are capturing the sequence in the same way". Well, usually you watch the footage and don´t look at frozen frames, so the first glance is exactly what most people do.
  
• fifth video: well yes that sure is weird. But usually your audience looking at that wouldn´t mind at all. If they wouldn´t have somebody point you at they probably wouldn´t even realize. That´s the point I was trying to make. Most people are no professional filmmakers, they watch movies different than we do.

On the other hand there are these kind of videos (not mine and probably a bit exaggerated, but quite to the point):


The interesting thing is that I couldn´t quickly find a depth of field comparison videocamera vs DSLR. That´s cool because as soon as the weather gets better here, I´ll do a short comparison between Sony PMW EX1 Videocamera (1/2" Sensor) vs DSLRs crop and fullframe vs mirrorless crop and fullframe. I need to go charging the PMW EX1 right away, because I haven´t used it for two years .

I don´t say videocameras are bad and I don´t say DSLRs are bad - either one is good in their own way, and it´s good to show the people the different aspects to make an educated decision on what is best for their needs. I prefer to shoot cameras with full frame sensors (Sony A7II mirrorless series) and don´t mind the rolling shutter in most situations (in fact I can think of only one situation when I dumped the footage). Here is a wedding I recently shot that would look totally different, wouldn´t have Canon decided to present the 5D Mark II a few years ago and open the field of shallow depth for filmmakers on a tighter budget. Go, find the rolling shutter. It is there, but does it distract from anything? Is tbe shallow depth on the other hand adding something to the movie? Decide for yourself:


Edited for formatting

 

[bernyneedshelp]

A great example. But then again that is a very specific use. Other advantages of CMOS sensor cameras with rolling shutter, like low light capabilities and shallow depth are way more often used and needed. I wouldn´t want to sacrifice that for these rarely used special occasions when you film oscillations.
More often you see effects like lightning that do make the rolling shutter more visible, but again that is not everyday use and I prefer the rest of my footage to have that "DSLR-Look" instead.

But that is my preference and I think it is great you raise those issues so that people can decide what is important for them.

I agree, it's a really good example but probably won't be an issue for my videos.

 

[480sparky]

A great example. But then again that is a very specific use. Other advantages of CMOS sensor cameras with rolling shutter, like low light capabilities and shallow depth are way more often used and needed. I wouldn´t want to sacrifice that for these rarely used special occasions when you film oscillations.
More often you see effects like lightning that do make the rolling shutter more visible, but again that is not everyday use and I prefer the rest of my footage to have that "DSLR-Look" instead.

But that is my preference and I think it is great you raise those issues so that people can decide what is important for them.

I agree, it's a really good example but probably won't be an issue for my videos.

Just because you don't plan on videoing guitar strings doesn't mean a rolling shutter won't be an issue.

 

[bernyneedshelp]

A great example. But then again that is a very specific use. .........

How many more 'specific uses' would you like to see?

... (forum won´t let me post more than 5 media, so I had to remove these from your post - please watch the videos in the post above)

Let me check:

• first video: if you want your film to look somewhat professional, you´d always choose a shutterspeed of 1/2 x fps - so in Europe (PAL) that´s 1/50th, in the US (NTSC) that´s 1/60th so that´s not a big deal with these settings.
  of course that would require ND filters outdoor, which not many are using. But if the OP is going the more professional route which I think he will, he´d consider that. Other than that he will be indoors, not on a plane and have no issues to set 1/50th without ND filters.
  
• two and three - well yes that happens if somebody is wildly rotating the camera on a tripod left and right - I´d say that is specific use . Sure it does happen going only one direction too, but you´d only do that for a very short time - maybe a second or even a fraction. Otherwise you´ll end up with a sick audience. And that second, maybe 1 or 2 percent of your audience will realize (especially if you are filming in a way that the audience doesn´t concentrate too much on the background)
  
• fourth video: at 1:45 the speaker says: "at first glance it looks both cameras are capturing the sequence in the same way". Well, usually you watch the footage and don´t look at frozen frames, so the first glance is exactly what most people do.
  
• fifth video: well yes that sure is weird. But usually your audience looking at that wouldn´t mind at all. If they wouldn´t have somebody point you at they probably wouldn´t even realize. That´s the point I was trying to make. Most people are no professional filmmakers, they watch movies different than we do.

On the other hand there are these kind of videos (not mine and probably a bit exaggerated, but quite to the point):


The interesting thing is that I couldn´t quickly find a depth of field comparison videocamera vs DSLR. That´s cool because as soon as the weather gets better here, I´ll do a short comparison between Sony PMW EX1 Videocamera (1/2" Sensor) vs DSLRs crop and fullframe vs mirrorless crop and fullframe. I need to go charging the PMW EX1 right away, because I haven´t used it for two years .

I don´t say videocameras are bad and I don´t say DSLRs are bad - either one is good in their own way, and it´s good to show the people the different aspects to make an educated decision on what is best for their needs. I prefer to shoot cameras with full frame sensors (Sony A7II mirrorless series) and don´t mind the rolling shutter in most situations (in fact I can think of only one situation when I dumped the footage). Here is a wedding I recently shot that would look totally different, wouldn´t have Canon decided to present the 5D Mark II a few years ago and open the field of shallow depth for filmmakers on a tighter budget. Go, find the rolling shutter. It is there, but does it distract from anything? Is tbe shallow depth on the other hand adding something to the movie? Decide for yourself:


Edited for formatting

All these videos helped me choose, by good quality video I meant DSLR, I want the video to look professional and I want to be able to change the depth of field and make a more cinematic look. Thanks.

 

[bernyneedshelp]

A great example. But then again that is a very specific use. .........

How many more 'specific uses' would you like to see?

... (forum won´t let me post more than 5 media, so I had to remove these from your post - please watch the videos in the post above)

Let me check:

• first video: if you want your film to look somewhat professional, you´d always choose a shutterspeed of 1/2 x fps - so in Europe (PAL) that´s 1/50th, in the US (NTSC) that´s 1/60th so that´s not a big deal with these settings.
  of course that would require ND filters outdoor, which not many are using. But if the OP is going the more professional route which I think he will, he´d consider that. Other than that he will be indoors, not on a plane and have no issues to set 1/50th without ND filters.
  
• two and three - well yes that happens if somebody is wildly rotating the camera on a tripod left and right - I´d say that is specific use . Sure it does happen going only one direction too, but you´d only do that for a very short time - maybe a second or even a fraction. Otherwise you´ll end up with a sick audience. And that second, maybe 1 or 2 percent of your audience will realize (especially if you are filming in a way that the audience doesn´t concentrate too much on the background)
  
• fourth video: at 1:45 the speaker says: "at first glance it looks both cameras are capturing the sequence in the same way". Well, usually you watch the footage and don´t look at frozen frames, so the first glance is exactly what most people do.
  
• fifth video: well yes that sure is weird. But usually your audience looking at that wouldn´t mind at all. If they wouldn´t have somebody point you at they probably wouldn´t even realize. That´s the point I was trying to make. Most people are no professional filmmakers, they watch movies different than we do.

On the other hand there are these kind of videos (not mine and probably a bit exaggerated, but quite to the point):


The interesting thing is that I couldn´t quickly find a depth of field comparison videocamera vs DSLR. That´s cool because as soon as the weather gets better here, I´ll do a short comparison between Sony PMW EX1 Videocamera (1/2" Sensor) vs DSLRs crop and fullframe vs mirrorless crop and fullframe. I need to go charging the PMW EX1 right away, because I haven´t used it for two years .

I don´t say videocameras are bad and I don´t say DSLRs are bad - either one is good in their own way, and it´s good to show the people the different aspects to make an educated decision on what is best for their needs. I prefer to shoot cameras with full frame sensors (Sony A7II mirrorless series) and don´t mind the rolling shutter in most situations (in fact I can think of only one situation when I dumped the footage). Here is a wedding I recently shot that would look totally different, wouldn´t have Canon decided to present the 5D Mark II a few years ago and open the field of shallow depth for filmmakers on a tighter budget. Go, find the rolling shutter. It is there, but does it distract from anything? Is tbe shallow depth on the other hand adding something to the movie? Decide for yourself:


Edited for formatting

This is the type of video I want to make.

 

[photo1x1.com]

A great example. But then again that is a very specific use. .........

How many more 'specific uses' would you like to see?

... (forum won´t let me post more than 5 media, so I had to remove these from your post - please watch the videos in the post above)

Let me check:

• first video: if you want your film to look somewhat professional, you´d always choose a shutterspeed of 1/2 x fps - so in Europe (PAL) that´s 1/50th, in the US (NTSC) that´s 1/60th so that´s not a big deal with these settings.
  of course that would require ND filters outdoor, which not many are using. But if the OP is going the more professional route which I think he will, he´d consider that. Other than that he will be indoors, not on a plane and have no issues to set 1/50th without ND filters.
  
• two and three - well yes that happens if somebody is wildly rotating the camera on a tripod left and right - I´d say that is specific use . Sure it does happen going only one direction too, but you´d only do that for a very short time - maybe a second or even a fraction. Otherwise you´ll end up with a sick audience. And that second, maybe 1 or 2 percent of your audience will realize (especially if you are filming in a way that the audience doesn´t concentrate too much on the background)
  
• fourth video: at 1:45 the speaker says: "at first glance it looks both cameras are capturing the sequence in the same way". Well, usually you watch the footage and don´t look at frozen frames, so the first glance is exactly what most people do.
  
• fifth video: well yes that sure is weird. But usually your audience looking at that wouldn´t mind at all. If they wouldn´t have somebody point you at they probably wouldn´t even realize. That´s the point I was trying to make. Most people are no professional filmmakers, they watch movies different than we do.

On the other hand there are these kind of videos (not mine and probably a bit exaggerated, but quite to the point):


The interesting thing is that I couldn´t quickly find a depth of field comparison videocamera vs DSLR. That´s cool because as soon as the weather gets better here, I´ll do a short comparison between Sony PMW EX1 Videocamera (1/2" Sensor) vs DSLRs crop and fullframe vs mirrorless crop and fullframe. I need to go charging the PMW EX1 right away, because I haven´t used it for two years .

I don´t say videocameras are bad and I don´t say DSLRs are bad - either one is good in their own way, and it´s good to show the people the different aspects to make an educated decision on what is best for their needs. I prefer to shoot cameras with full frame sensors (Sony A7II mirrorless series) and don´t mind the rolling shutter in most situations (in fact I can think of only one situation when I dumped the footage). Here is a wedding I recently shot that would look totally different, wouldn´t have Canon decided to present the 5D Mark II a few years ago and open the field of shallow depth for filmmakers on a tighter budget. Go, find the rolling shutter. It is there, but does it distract from anything? Is tbe shallow depth on the other hand adding something to the movie? Decide for yourself:


Edited for formatting

This is the type of video I want to make.

Cool, I like it. Quite a few closeups though - if you want to get that close, you need a macro lens.
I think the sony a6000 is really a great camera for that - compared to other DSLRs, or mirrorless it has a really fast continuous autofocus for filming, I am not so sure about autofocus on macro lenses though. The video you show has quite a lot of out of focus moments, where the focus didn´t work as intended.
And one more thing: regarding tripods: you get what you pay for. If you want to track a fish that close you need one with a good fluid head. These are rather expensive though. Maybe you´d be better off with a brushless gimbal - you can combine slider and tripod in one device - it needs some practice though. But then again that video you posted is not extremely smooth.
Whatever you choose - take your time for filming and enjoy the process. And in the end only take your best footage to combine it to a movie. You´d better spend a few more hours filming than creating a movie everyone else could too .

 

[bernyneedshelp]

A great example. But then again that is a very specific use. .........

How many more 'specific uses' would you like to see?

... (forum won´t let me post more than 5 media, so I had to remove these from your post - please watch the videos in the post above)

Let me check:

• first video: if you want your film to look somewhat professional, you´d always choose a shutterspeed of 1/2 x fps - so in Europe (PAL) that´s 1/50th, in the US (NTSC) that´s 1/60th so that´s not a big deal with these settings.
  of course that would require ND filters outdoor, which not many are using. But if the OP is going the more professional route which I think he will, he´d consider that. Other than that he will be indoors, not on a plane and have no issues to set 1/50th without ND filters.
  
• two and three - well yes that happens if somebody is wildly rotating the camera on a tripod left and right - I´d say that is specific use . Sure it does happen going only one direction too, but you´d only do that for a very short time - maybe a second or even a fraction. Otherwise you´ll end up with a sick audience. And that second, maybe 1 or 2 percent of your audience will realize (especially if you are filming in a way that the audience doesn´t concentrate too much on the background)
  
• fourth video: at 1:45 the speaker says: "at first glance it looks both cameras are capturing the sequence in the same way". Well, usually you watch the footage and don´t look at frozen frames, so the first glance is exactly what most people do.
  
• fifth video: well yes that sure is weird. But usually your audience looking at that wouldn´t mind at all. If they wouldn´t have somebody point you at they probably wouldn´t even realize. That´s the point I was trying to make. Most people are no professional filmmakers, they watch movies different than we do.

On the other hand there are these kind of videos (not mine and probably a bit exaggerated, but quite to the point):


The interesting thing is that I couldn´t quickly find a depth of field comparison videocamera vs DSLR. That´s cool because as soon as the weather gets better here, I´ll do a short comparison between Sony PMW EX1 Videocamera (1/2" Sensor) vs DSLRs crop and fullframe vs mirrorless crop and fullframe. I need to go charging the PMW EX1 right away, because I haven´t used it for two years .

I don´t say videocameras are bad and I don´t say DSLRs are bad - either one is good in their own way, and it´s good to show the people the different aspects to make an educated decision on what is best for their needs. I prefer to shoot cameras with full frame sensors (Sony A7II mirrorless series) and don´t mind the rolling shutter in most situations (in fact I can think of only one situation when I dumped the footage). Here is a wedding I recently shot that would look totally different, wouldn´t have Canon decided to present the 5D Mark II a few years ago and open the field of shallow depth for filmmakers on a tighter budget. Go, find the rolling shutter. It is there, but does it distract from anything? Is tbe shallow depth on the other hand adding something to the movie? Decide for yourself:


Edited for formatting

This is the type of video I want to make.

Cool, I like it. Quite a few closeups though - if you want to get that close, you need a macro lens.
I think the sony a6000 is really a great camera for that - compared to other DSLRs, or mirrorless it has a really fast continuous autofocus for filming, I am not so sure about autofocus on macro lenses though. The video you show has quite a lot of out of focus moments, where the focus didn´t work as intended.
And one more thing: regarding tripods: you get what you pay for. If you want to track a fish that close you need one with a good fluid head. These are rather expensive though. Maybe you´d be better off with a brushless gimbal - you can combine slider and tripod in one device - it needs some practice though. But then again that video you posted is not extremely smooth.
Whatever you choose - take your time for filming and enjoy the process. And in the end only take your best footage to combine it to a movie. You´d better spend a few more hours filming than creating a movie everyone else could too .

I agree completely, yeah the video is out of focus some times and changes focus back and forth trying to focus on the fish, I would do the same but cut out the parts where im trying to get the camera to focus. I would love a brushless gimbal but aren't they even more expensive than the tripod and the fluid head??

 

[photo1x1.com]

A great example. But then again that is a very specific use. .........

How many more 'specific uses' would you like to see?

... (forum won´t let me post more than 5 media, so I had to remove these from your post - please watch the videos in the post above)

Let me check:

• first video: if you want your film to look somewhat professional, you´d always choose a shutterspeed of 1/2 x fps - so in Europe (PAL) that´s 1/50th, in the US (NTSC) that´s 1/60th so that´s not a big deal with these settings.
  of course that would require ND filters outdoor, which not many are using. But if the OP is going the more professional route which I think he will, he´d consider that. Other than that he will be indoors, not on a plane and have no issues to set 1/50th without ND filters.
  
• two and three - well yes that happens if somebody is wildly rotating the camera on a tripod left and right - I´d say that is specific use . Sure it does happen going only one direction too, but you´d only do that for a very short time - maybe a second or even a fraction. Otherwise you´ll end up with a sick audience. And that second, maybe 1 or 2 percent of your audience will realize (especially if you are filming in a way that the audience doesn´t concentrate too much on the background)
  
• fourth video: at 1:45 the speaker says: "at first glance it looks both cameras are capturing the sequence in the same way". Well, usually you watch the footage and don´t look at frozen frames, so the first glance is exactly what most people do.
  
• fifth video: well yes that sure is weird. But usually your audience looking at that wouldn´t mind at all. If they wouldn´t have somebody point you at they probably wouldn´t even realize. That´s the point I was trying to make. Most people are no professional filmmakers, they watch movies different than we do.

On the other hand there are these kind of videos (not mine and probably a bit exaggerated, but quite to the point):


The interesting thing is that I couldn´t quickly find a depth of field comparison videocamera vs DSLR. That´s cool because as soon as the weather gets better here, I´ll do a short comparison between Sony PMW EX1 Videocamera (1/2" Sensor) vs DSLRs crop and fullframe vs mirrorless crop and fullframe. I need to go charging the PMW EX1 right away, because I haven´t used it for two years .

I don´t say videocameras are bad and I don´t say DSLRs are bad - either one is good in their own way, and it´s good to show the people the different aspects to make an educated decision on what is best for their needs. I prefer to shoot cameras with full frame sensors (Sony A7II mirrorless series) and don´t mind the rolling shutter in most situations (in fact I can think of only one situation when I dumped the footage). Here is a wedding I recently shot that would look totally different, wouldn´t have Canon decided to present the 5D Mark II a few years ago and open the field of shallow depth for filmmakers on a tighter budget. Go, find the rolling shutter. It is there, but does it distract from anything? Is tbe shallow depth on the other hand adding something to the movie? Decide for yourself:


Edited for formatting

This is the type of video I want to make.

Cool, I like it. Quite a few closeups though - if you want to get that close, you need a macro lens.
I think the sony a6000 is really a great camera for that - compared to other DSLRs, or mirrorless it has a really fast continuous autofocus for filming, I am not so sure about autofocus on macro lenses though. The video you show has quite a lot of out of focus moments, where the focus didn´t work as intended.
And one more thing: regarding tripods: you get what you pay for. If you want to track a fish that close you need one with a good fluid head. These are rather expensive though. Maybe you´d be better off with a brushless gimbal - you can combine slider and tripod in one device - it needs some practice though. But then again that video you posted is not extremely smooth.
Whatever you choose - take your time for filming and enjoy the process. And in the end only take your best footage to combine it to a movie. You´d better spend a few more hours filming than creating a movie everyone else could too .

I agree completely, yeah the video is out of focus some times and changes focus back and forth trying to focus on the fish, I would do the same but cut out the parts where im trying to get the camera to focus. I would love a brushless gimbal but aren't they even more expensive than the tripod and the fluid head??

I'm afraid a good tripod/fluid head easily costs 600 bucks. Well, and you don't want a bad one, trust me. It's the fluid motion that makes all the difference. Especially for what you plan. I learned the hard way and so did friends. But maybe you can go the rental route. I'd recommend sachtler, despite their rather high prices, they are still the cheapest really usable fluid heads that I know. I need to admit though, that my last intensive search for video tripods was three years ago. But that's not the area with the most innovation, so I guess there wasn't much change.
There are nice workarounds like using rubberbands with bad videoheads to make movement fluid, but there is always a deadband - I don't think that will work with your fish.
Well, and then add the slider to those 600 and you get veeeeery close to a gimbal.

Taking another look at the video you posted, I don't think they use other lights, than the tank lights from the top. If you avoid the light to spill out into the room, you might not need any cloth if your camera doesn't get too close. Avoid to wear bright clothes though. Black is your friend .