DEEP ATOM down under

[Pawel Achtel]

Pawel I am intrigued to find out what your magic solution is? Please share ;-)

Will do in due course (two patents in preparation), but I would be very interested to work closely with you as you will have good macro 3D capability and I will have all wides 3D covered :) Let's talk soon.

[Pedro Guimaraes]

First congrats on the pre-purchase.....

I've been diving alot recently in preparation for a few 3D underwater shoots. Hopefully teh dep atom will be ready in time for me to use if not we stuck with the hydroflex "hawkeye" and the hydroflex/neutron "borg".

also we will have a few gates 3DA1 rolling on behind the scenes footage.

Rossi is correct 17.5 is about as wide as you can go on the standard ATOM glass.

The production I'm attached to has just purchased 2 14-24mm Ruby lenses.

They are beautiful and I have put them on the rig (while rossi was there actually) and they work well in 3D.

We were mostly planning on using them with 2 epics side by side because of the Atom mirror coverage.

Now recently Element Technica announced a larger mirror box for the ATOM.

http://www.technica3d.com/gallery/?a...89364337022017

THIS IS MONUMENTAL NEWS.....especially for gates and deep atom owners.

Why? well because "allegedly" it will cover 14mm on the epic......maybe someone from ET can comment.

So......to me the desired setup is epics....deep atom....and ruby 14-24's.

I hope it's not too late in the fabrication of the housing to accommodate the larger mirror box into the "deep atom"


Understanding the facts that have been brought up, I think it's premature to say that a 14mm on a flat port would be unusable.....

I know first hand that recently on the $60million feature "life of pi 3D" (Ang Lee) that they used 16mm on flat port. If it's acceptable for a movie of that level it's not a stretch to think that a 14mm might work.

I think part of testing is seeing what is the level of "acceptable" level of issues. Also naturally how well we might be able to fix these issues in post.

so at this point I think priority is finding out if gates can accommodate the new larger mirror!

[KETCH ROSSi]

That is good news Pedro on the larger box, as I had been talking to the guys at ET for a MBN to fit the Master Primes, only to find out in Italy that they don't,
so let's hope this larger M. Box will, so not only we can now go to 14mm but also use our MP's... ;)

[Pawel Achtel]

Pedro, Have you tried shooting 14mm lens through a flat port underwater? If so, have you managed to resolve more than 200 line pairs of resolution? If so, tell me how.

[Pedro Guimaraes]

Pawel.....I plan on testing the Ruby's underwater on a flat port very soon. I pick up the lenses tomorrow.

Worth a try I say.....

now I just have to laminate a resolution chart I try it out in a pool first then I'll try ocean tests.

...and Ketch just to be clear.....it's not just a larger mirror box.....the mirror is larger as well.....just in case that wasn't clear.

[Ross Isaacs]

The Deep Atom has definitely been designed to take the larger mirror now.

[KETCH ROSSi]

...and Ketch just to be clear.....it's not just a larger mirror box.....the mirror is larger as well.....just in case that wasn't clear.

He he, no, very clear of course Pedro... ;)

Btw, Joey told me that the new larger Mirror Box will get to 16mm on the Epic as far as it is not full frame, but I do hope that we can get 14mm on it, so I get our Master Primes set down to 14mm... ;)

[Pedro Guimaraes]

humm.....the screen plane rig I tested yesterday has a optional mirror box that reaches out to a 14mm..........

[KETCH ROSSi]

I enquired about the large box, since the one we have contrary to original believe and understanding when purchased, does not fit the Master Primes,
so Joey told me that the new larger Mirror Box has a diameter of lens opening of 146mm vs. the 120mm of current one,
and said 16mm was the maximum wide end for Epic while not in full frame.

But, love to have those extra 2mm on it... ;)

[Pawel Achtel]

Pedro, of course, testing doesn't hurt. However, this is a very well known and understood problem and does not depend on the lens or housing. There is no difference whether you are using Master Primes or LensBaby, the effect is the same. There have been books written on it. You can calculate the amount of chromatic aberration based on the angle of incidence. The extent of this distortion is too big to ignore as, essentially, you would not even resolve standard definition with such system.

See chapter 11 in this doucument, for example:

http://www.cinemarine.net/cinemarine...%20physics.pdf

You can calculate the difference between blue and red which in case of your 14mm lens will be as much 7-8 degrees difference!!! Plus, of course, the image magnification of 25%, so that your 14mm becomes more like 20mm lens (the effective underwater focal length is 33% greater than in air.) in addition to severe radial distortions.

I don't understand why people ignore basic laws of physics, purchase tens of thousands of dollars of equipment in order to "test". Sorry, am I missing something?

BTW, other article worth reading:

http://scubageek.com/articles/wwwposn.html

Anyway, please post the results.