Underwater Bubble Blowers User Group Thread NEW

[Tom Hamilton]

Certainly a difficult thing Johnny.

Your NG Migrations footage of the Palau jellyfish is possibly some of the most spectacular stuff I have ever seen, an audience riveted to their seats is a rare thing. As you know, I was with KC at the Jackson Hole event, where your Migrations stuff was screened for the very first time. Feck me Johnny, that was genius, Emmy well deserved, big congrats there.

But I still can't help thinking, how much of this is driven by the execs, and how much creativity/truth we lose by being controlled by their often suspect agendas.

 

[Johnny Friday]

Certainly a difficult thing Johnny.

Your NG Migrations footage of the Palau jellyfish is possibly some of the most spectacular stuff I have ever seen, an audience riveted to their seats is a rare thing. As you know, I was with KC at the Jackson Hole event, where your Migrations stuff was screened for the very first time. Feck me Johnny, that was genius, Emmy well deserved, big congrats there.

But I still can't help thinking, how much of this is driven by the execs, and how much creativity/truth we lose by being controlled by their often suspect agendas.

....Creative control. I'll suspect the first paid camera operator thought the same thing as his boss was changing developing formulas.....
Thanks for the compliments....i was merely a cog in a GIANT wheel though....but do appreciate your comments sir.

 

[paulherrin]

Tom, there's a few interesting things to think about here. First and foremost, when you're underwater long enough, your eyes naturally begin to adjust to the available light. Just like moving between light and dark areas, we also adjust to fluctuations in color. Same thing happens if you walk onto a green/bluescreen stage or wear stereo-anaglyph glasses. Same thing happens between daylight, tungsten, fluorescent, etc. So when you're underwater, your eyes become more sensitive to red - which is what white-balancing attempts to achieve in cameras. So when you see a yellow fish underwater, it looks yellow and the reef looks a reddish-brown. And then you take a picture and it's all cyan. So that's not really truth, that's the limitations of our technology compared to biology. To further complicate matters, every single person has a slightly different way of seeing, their lens is shaped differently, different amounts of nutrients, and more importantly, different brains, different memories, and different experiences. All these things (and more) affect the way we perceive color and how it makes us feel, which is reciprocal to the seeing. The trouble with scientific devices that capture light is that they're not subjective enough to be truthful...

We all know that art is not truth. Art is a lie that makes us realize truth, at least the truth that is given us to understand. The artist must know the manner whereby to convince others of the truthfulness of his lies.

-Picasso

 

[paulherrin]

-paul

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Most people shooting with Red cameras care about image quality. They put a lot of effort and research trying to improve how the images look and strive to have sharper, undistorted, natural-looking, colourful, noise-free and simply breath taking images. Those images help to tell the story and make the whole film experience enjoyable and amazing.

Film making is very technical. It is technical because it involves understanding of optics and having a good grasp on physics in general. Underwater film making is even more demanding. It requires a lot of skill, experience but also scientific knowledge and testing.

You can't improve anything unless you can measure it first. It is that simple. It's called engineering, not ignorance.

Like many others, I strive to archive better images underwater. And, I'm not happy with what the industry has to offer: less-than standard definition corner resolution, chromatic aberrations, distorted images making the viewers dizzy - pathetic!

Like Jim Jannard, I believe there is a better way. There is a way for underwater images to catch up with the rest of the 4k revolution. After all, we are using 4k cameras for a reason.

Of course, image quality, whilst important, is only one of the many ingredients of the complex process of film making. First comes the story, then the execution: the action, the camera work, the angles, the location, editing, sound, lighting, the optics, the resolution, distortions, the dynamic range, parallax, convergence, inter-axial distance and the entire post production process. Some of them require scientific knowledge and process and some of them require artistic and other skills.

Tom - it's has nothing to do with the size of your willy....that's a different forum...

 

[Johnny Friday]

Pawel,
while I'll agree with much of your list here:

Of course, image quality, whilst important, is only one of the many ingredients of the complex process of film making. First comes the story, then the execution: the action, the camera work, the angles, the location, editing, sound, lighting, the optics, the resolution, distortions, the dynamic range, parallax, convergence, inter-axial distance and the entire post production process. Some of them require scientific knowledge and process and some of them require artistic and other skills.

I'll add you left out the most important ingredient of the film making process: and thats funding.....more important than any aforementioned in my opinion...since we see plenty of less than average movies made that left out most of your ingredients, yet they got the dough. But that also is another topic completely since we are focused here on making beautiful imagery...but my point i think is understood in that we can all point out perfect examples of bad...., but also someone had to cut a path for us to criticize and get the ball moving and underwater is that red-headed step child from Paraguay that gets little love...and even smaller amounts of funding thrown at it....hence our tools not keeping up with the topside world---somebody has to pay for it....

 

[Dave Blackham]

I haven't found any posts on this so hope some one can point me to them if this has been raised before. Re 3D, There are issues with flat ports as we all know and issues of IA if Epic or Scarlet is used Side by Side. Domes can't be used for obvious reasons with both cameras sharing one dome.

Dome ports or specialist optics/lenses are still really needed.

Has any one considered a wet mirror box ? possibly filled with distilled or clear particle free water. It may turn out to be huge but would offer adjustable IA, with a dome though may be impractical due to size of the mirror needed. but with specialist lenses may be possible to get the camera much closer to the mirror to offer a smaller mirror but would likely still be quite a large rig.

Im just hypothesising here....

 

[Tom Hamilton]

Tom - it's has nothing to do with the size of your willy....that's a different forum...

Yes, quite right Pawel, post vaporized. You'll have to admit, though, at a certain stage of development somewhere on the long journey from youthful enthusiasm to professional competence, egos occasionally tend to rage out of control in this business. They are the ones who haven't yet failed miserably, me thinks.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

I haven't found any posts on this so hope some one can point me to them if this has been raised before. Re 3D, There are issues with flat ports as we all know and issues of IA if Epic or Scarlet is used Side by Side. Domes can't be used for obvious reasons with both cameras sharing one dome.

Dome ports or specialist optics/lenses are still really needed.

Has any one considered a wet mirror box ? possibly filled with distilled or clear particle free water. It may turn out to be huge but would offer adjustable IA, with a dome though may be impractical due to size of the mirror needed. but with specialist lenses may be possible to get the camera much closer to the mirror to offer a smaller mirror but would likely still be quite a large rig.

Im just hypothesising here....

Domes, while much better than flat ports, are also not the answer as with large sensor size, they would need to grow to gigantic proportions to keep the field curvature down to acceptable levels. Traditional 8" dome fails to resolve standard definition in the corners of a 90 degree field of view. And, it gets worse as the angle of view increases - much worse: expotntially worse.

Yes, we are in the process of designing wet mirror for twin DeepX setup. Considering the DeepX weighs 10kg with the camera and ready to shoot, we are expecting the entire beam splitter rig with two DeepX to weigh less than 30kg (70 lb). I wouldn't call it a large rig even for land applications.

When we are at the size of 3D rigs, I'm pleased to report the final empty weight of 3Deep housing: 15kg (33 lb) - I love Titanium

As you can see, the optical performance of underwater rigs does not have to be crippled by distortions and fuzzy edges and the rigs do not have to require a crane to lift them off the ground: they can be just the same size and weight as land based setups and produce pictures that are just as sharp and just as good, if not better. Finally!

I'm sure other manufacturers will follow soon...now they have no choice, but to innovate, which is a good thing for the industry.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Yes, quite right Pawel, post vaporized. You'll have to admit, though, at a certain stage of development somewhere on the long journey from youthful enthusiasm to professional competence, egos occasionally tend to rage out of control in this business. They are the ones who haven't yet failed miserably, me thinks.

Thanks, Tom. I agree with you.

We are the first manufacturer who introduced an underwater housing able to resolve more than standard definition edge-to-edge. In fact it out-resolves the 5k Epic sensor without any field or geometric distortions. Naturally, there is a lot of resistance among the manufacturers and their loyal customes to change, especially after they have invested in equipment costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. And this is why we need objective, transparent and meaningful discussion.

It remids me the days when RED was under attack from all sorts of industry "experts" with their own agendas. There have been numerous tests and measurements undertaken and published by Graeme Nattress showing zone charts, MTF, measuring dynamic range and comparing to the "established industry standards" that showed resistance to change. Look at it now: every company has a 4k camera.

Now, that my company introduced the first 4k underwater housing, I'm sure competitors are trying to implement some strategies: spread uncertainty, fear and doubt and working on their own solutions. What I think was great about Pedro's test (and which I did not convey well) is that his test can be easily interpreted by a lay person. Pedro made a range of very simple, yet meanigful "sanity check" tests and, even after a cursory look at the results, it is difficult to accept the state of the art in the underwater cinematography.

Well, I'm proud to have started the underwater 4k challange. "Waterproof" is not enough these days.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Thanks, Tom. I agree with you.

We are the first manufacturer who introduced an underwater housing able to resolve more than standard definition edge-to-edge. In fact it out-resolves the 5k Epic sensor without any field or geometric distortions. Naturally, there is a lot of resistance among the manufacturers and their loyal customes to change, especially after they have invested in equipment costing hundreds of thousands of dollars. And this is why we need objective, transparent and meaningful discussion.

It remids me the days when RED was under attack from all sorts of industry "experts" with their own agendas. There have been numerous tests and measurements undertaken and published by Graeme Nattress showing zone charts, MTF, measuring dynamic range and comparing to the "established industry standards" that showed resistance to change. Look at it now: every company has a 4k camera.

Now, that my company introduced the first 4k underwater housing, I'm sure competitors are trying to implement some strategies: spread uncertainty, fear and doubt and working on their own solutions. What I think was great about Pedro's test (and which I did not convey well) is that his test can be easily interpreted by a lay person. Pedro made a range of very simple, yet meanigful "sanity check" tests and, even after a cursory look at the results, it is difficult to accept the state of the art in the underwater cinematography.

Well, I'm proud to have started the underwater 4k challange. "Waterproof" is not enough these days.

The flaw in your theory/implication that we "other manufacturers are just protecting our turf" is twofold:

1) We are the ones that suggested the use of the Nikonos 15 more than 3 years ago!!

And

2) making a good housing for Nikonos and Epic is actually quite simple given the way lens mounts attach to the epic and the fact that backfocus is adjusted with movement of the sensor (neither of which was true with the Redone)

I'll grant that you have taken it a step further with the extra machining of the actual housing body to make it super small, (which I am not sure is necessary or desirable given the greater usability with regard to batteries, monitoring, external cables, etc that you get with a slightly larger housing) but I can make an epic/Nikonos setup quite easily and at a substantially lower price point. Making a Nikonos housing would actually cost less in materials and make the housing about 4 inches shorter using the same basic body size we use now, OR we could make an alternate front plate for the stock housing and just add another power control.

The question of whether to actually do it is also twofold, 1) Is it worth it given the narrow 75 degreeFOV with Epic? and 2) will it ever be approved by Red given that it is in fact a lens mount? - and one that is a sensor wet flood waiting to happen. You are somewhat insulated by being at the end of the world from both Red and the vast majority of customers,but gates and AquaVideo can't escape problems or litigation as easily since we are here in the land of litigation AND the two companies are also in the 2 states with the greatest populations of serious underwater shooters. And if it isn't fully approved there would certainly be litigation if ANYTHING went wrong and with the cost of lawyers even if you win you lose.

I don't want to be a dick and send Jarred an email questioning whether approval of a Nikonos/epic mount is possible, but it seems like it is time for you to let the Reduser bubble lowers know the status of that since this seems to be your prime advertising vehicle.

And it isn't JUST a litigation issue - having the lens seal area be a DIRECT pathway to the sensor and electronics is just a very questionable method - particularly to just allow use of 20 year old lenses AND when there are known optical solutions possible (and probable very soon) that are somewhat more expensive (but not much more than one of the low cost cine primes). And the combined cost of the optic and our housing won't be much more than your package. AND a LOT cheaper than replacing an epic or scarlet.

----------------------

How's that for some FUD? . (it's like paranoia - just because it is FUD doesn't mean it's wrong)

---------------------------------

BTW Athough a side by side Nikonos/epic 3D setup is just too much IA for most subjects, I do think the ultracompact Nikonos setup and a wet beamsplitter has real merit (since we can't get much better wide FOV with reasonably size beamsplitters in housings). I suspect that that setup - plus a dry, macro-only beamsplitter set up (which I am working on) might be the ultimate way to make a no compromise IMAX u/w movie. It's still going to be pretty damn cumbersome though.

So it isn't necessarily just FUD - I'm trying to put out a more thorough explanation of what all this means.

 

[Johnny Friday]

I'd suggest it's about time to put this conversation to bed...we can agree that it goes no place and we hear it far too much like an infomercial. i say change this channel please. Pawer=HD; AV & Gates= SD.....moving on!

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Michael,

... but I can make an epic/Nikonos setup quite easily and at a substantially lower price point. Making a Nikonos housing would actually cost less in materials and make the housing about 4 inches shorter using the same basic body size we use now, OR we could make an alternate front plate for the stock housing and just add another power control...

I thought Jim Jannard responded to this one already:

... if this was easy, the other guys would have already done it...

What I meant by spreading FUD is, for example, you claiming that our Nikonos mount would void the warranty or that RED is not involved. Jarred is perfectly aware of our development and Ted has recently spoken highly of our invention in an interview with Mike Seymour.

You are also incorrect that our Nikonos mount would easily flood or allow ingress of water to the sensor. You made this comment without even knowing the design of our mount. The fact is that our mount is different than the original Nikonos and has channels routing any potential flood away from the sensor and down to the bottom of the housing.

Our Nikonos lens mount is manufactured with high precision and the sealing is at least as reliable as that of any other housing. We are also offering custom quad-rings for the Nikonos main o-ring as a way of redundancy, however our tests involving wiggling the lens or holding by the lens underwater showed that it is a very fail-safe and reliable mount. Most Nikonos V floods were through the rear door, which was a weak point of Nikonos V system. We do not have such door in DeepX or 3Deep.

The best illustration of how precise our manufacturing is that our mechanical controls actually seal without o-rings even installed.

You are also incorrect in saying that the mount is "simple" or that back focus is or should be adjusted with the sensor position. It is actually quite complex mount and engineered up to 5 microns of precision required for exact tolerances required by wide angle optics. Our Nikonos mount does not require user to make sensor back focus adjustment. It is thermally stable and perfect in each and every housing that we make.

Both DeepX and 3Deep housings are relatively complex to manufacture and require sophisticated and expensive tooling and materials. The benefit is that they weigh 6kg and 15kg respectively: another industry breakthrough and great engineering achievement. You can always attach a fridge to it if it is too small...or big movie lights, a scooter or a scuba tank, like I do. Red Epic is tiny by any industry standard...and so are DeepX and 3Deep.

I don't personally consider 75 degree FOV as too limiting, particularly that it produces sharp, flat and even image without distortions. With 6k sensor, the angle of view is more than 80 degrees, which is considered ultra-wide. For wider angles, a fisheye wet or terrestrial lens (Using Aquatica mount) can be used. Fisheye lenses do not suffer from degradation behind underwater dome ports, like rectilinear lenses do.

Lastly, our housings will be distributed and supported by Band Pro in US and most likely in Europe. Do you really think we do not have respectable world-wide presence? What is your or Gates' support in Australia like?

How's that for some FUD? . (it's like paranoia - just because it is FUD doesn't mean it's wrong)

...until proven otherwise...

 

[Tom Hamilton]

This is post # 999, who would like the honor of #1000?

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Pawel,

I have been one of the most vocal opponents you've had on this forum, but like most everybody else I suspect, I've grown tired of this debate. It does not much matter who's right or wrong, for ultimately, that is a very subjective thing, but what's most important to me at least, is that it has been a while since meaningful exchanges in the art and practice of underwater imaging have flown through this thread. And that's ultimately what I come here for, first and foremost, gleaning technical knowledge a distant second. In this, my last comment to you on the subject, I would give you the following unsolicited advise.

You have been harsh, outspoken and antagonistic with respect to the other manufacturers in this forum, and if you don't think so, retrace your steps and re-read your posts. You have been so blinded by your own brand of truth that you have totally denied the valid points other people have exposed in favor of their systems and in disfavor of yours. Every system has pros and cons, EVERY ONE, and ignoring that will do you great disservice. You are obviously very intelligent and knowledgeable about the technical aspects of our craft, which is why, fastidious as it may be, I never skip a post of yours in hopes of learning something from you. And I have. And I thank you for that. But thinking that the "others" have nothing to offer is downright insolent, and worse, foolish.
I would pay attention to whatever Gates does. Theirs is a philosophy of functionality and reliability. Their designs go to great pains to mold their housings to the camera as opposed to the easier road to house it in a tube, be it sewer pipe or gleaming titanium. They find brilliant ways to make every relevant control accessible, and up until the advent of RED, their HD camera housings were endowed with the best optics ever designed for such systems, the Fathom ports, far sharper from corner to corner than anything made by Nikon. Now, for me, Gates was always about peace of mind, because I am one of those who uses 3-4 controls and never needs to fumble with so many other things. In fact, I've wondered if somebody has ever needed to use all of the controls that Gates puts in their housings, but far be it from me to say that who who pushes so many buttons does not know what they're doing. Then you have Aquavideo at the other end, the essence of simplicity at a matching price, and there's a place for that too. I have told Mike many times that, for my taste, his systems are far too crude and unrefined, with controls that could benefit from more ergonomical thinking and surfaces that could/should be smoother and friendlier on the skin of your fingers but then, those ugly housings have not failed me down to 150 meters/450 ft, where I have taken them repeatedly, something I would not do with any other system, except a Gates. And in terms of optical alignment, Mike's housings are designed to meet optimal specs, and what else can you ask for in the end?

You might say that you can ask for optical perfection, but your system does not deliver that, however many tests you submit here. The heart of your system, the Nikonos 15 mm, is an amazing piece of technology, specially considering its age, which it anything, proves that the principles of underwater optics have been well understood for many decades now. But, as somebody who somewhere in his garage has thousands of slides shot with that lens, I can tell you that it yields chromatic aberrations and abnormalities just like any other lens when pushed hard and that it produces VERY unsightly flares whenever getting stray light from angles 30 degrees and above. Surely you must have tested this lens enough to have detected these problems. And finally, for many of us, a field of vision of 75 degrees is truly not wide enough, irrespective of how tack sharp the images are. I would MUCH rather shoot with a Nikon 14-24 and cut the soft edges in post and keep the resulting 90-98 degree FOV than use your full raster 75 degree. Or do the same with a Tokina 10-17, and throw away all the bent shapes on the corners and keep the quasi-rectilinear 3/4 area around the center, which is also tack sharp, but much more optically clean than the Niokonos, given the much newer technology. So, while you have been pioneering and brave enough to tackle an idea that yields something of paramount importance for you, sharp images from end to end, the fact remains that other people who care about their images just as much as you and who have spent just as much time shooting underwater as you, if not more, might prefer other approaches without doing it as a compromise.

I have conducted EXTENSIVE tests on Epic with both the Nikon 14-24 and the Tokina 10-17 behind a 12" glass dome on a custom housing, and can tell you that the images look breathtaking. And the people on whose behalf I have conducted these tests have the capabilities of projecting their images onto a 15 meter/45 ft wide screen, from a Sony 4K projector, a Christie prototype 4K and 2K projectors, and a film projector. Files are fed through a Clipster system at 10 bit for all digital versions, and film counterparts are scanned at 6K and printed of Kodak, all on Arri scanner and printer. We have viewed these cropped files I'm talking about and they look gorgeous. And while gorgeous might be in the eye of the beholder, the eyes I'm talking about are about the most discerning in terms of appreciable quality. You may rant about measurable quality as the way to go, and you have a point, but for many others, including several who work with budgets in the hundreds of millions, appreciable quality is still good enough to justify their decisions. And it is enough for those who trust their decisions when awarding them with those astronomical budgets. So I would advise you to believe in your vision and defend it fiercely, but not at the cost of civility and disrespect to others, and just as importantly, do not become obsessed or blinded by your way of seeing things because you might get left behind when those other seemingly rudimentary approaches take the next quantum leap they're bound to, as no technology remains stagnant for long.

Happy Mothers' Day!

 

[Johnny Friday]

:cheers2: Cheers to that....

 

[David Cole]

...those ugly housings....

I, for one, LIKE the ugly. It throws customs off your scent when traveling on a tourist visa. Not that I do that.

 

[Johnny Friday]

I, for one, LIKE the ugly. It throws customs off your scent when traveling on a tourist visa. Not that I do that.

Obviously you're not a golfer......

 

[Russ Campbell]

Great post Rudi. Tired of seeing the Underwater Bubble Blowers Thread being abused by Pawel's incessent self marketing. This thread is about sharing ideas and tips for shooting Red cameras underwater. We all certainly value input from various housing manufactures, but not when comments are antagonistic and derogatory to other competitors. Let's move on. Pawel, by all means, create a new thread centered around your philosophy and products and whoever is interested can follow you there.

 

[Frazier Nivens]

I'd suggest it's about time to put this conversation to bed...we can agree that it goes no place and we hear it far too much like an infomercial. i say change this channel please. Pawer=HD; AV & Gates= SD.....moving on!

No good to go back and forth anymore, of no use guys...I'm fine with my Aquavideo/EPIC and with the 14mm lens and housing, it makes some nice imaging and I'm happy, my clients are happy and no reason to further discussion, can't be won and it really doesn't matter in the long run. I'm good with what I'm getting with my system. I'm with Johnny, change the channel on this. Good Day everyone..