Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

DEEP ATOM down under

Ross Isaacs said:
Pawel I am intrigued to find out what your magic solution is? Please share ;-)
Click to expand...

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.
 
Congrats!

Congrats!

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/?albumid=5615289364337022017

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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
Pedro Guimaraes said:
...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.
Click to expand...


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... ;)
 
humm.....the screen plane rig I tested yesterday has a optional mirror box that reaches out to a 14mm..........
 
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... ;)
 
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/fichiers/File/Elements of optics and basic physics.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.
 
Can someone explain why they are building a housing for a mirror rig rather than just making the housing the mirror rig?

I can understand the Atom rig in a housing for a very few types of Hollywood/feature mid range shots but it seems to me that for most actual underwater 3D you will either shoot as wide as possible or shoot macro. For wide you want as wide as possible so might as well build a housing for the largest practical mirror and lenses, and by definition it is going to be pretty big with large volume. Seems like adding the rig in there just adds more size and complexity without much added utility. BTW Pedro and others, are you planning to converge on your full wide angle (i.e. 14-16 or whatever the widest is) shots or just go parallel?

On the other hand, macro shooting doesn't require a big mirror since you are using telephoto lenses and very small IA, so while you could do it in the same housing you are dragging around a huge unit to shoot the smallest subjects which creates problems getting into small spaces, lighting small close subjects, spooking the subects, etc. Seems like it makes more sense to have a separate small housing for macro?

BTW Pawel is spot on regarding the physics of underwater, it isn't a lens issue - it is the fact that you can't really correct for the problems on two separate cameras because the corrections require you to align them with the lenses so if you are aligned on one you aren't on the other. So I agree you should do some aquarium tests to understand the issues before you spend $160K on Atom plus housing.

I haven't done the charts but I don't really doubt the major loss of resolution - it is consistent with the physics. Whether it is "good enough" is a different question, but it may mean there isn't much point in spending huge dollars for no increase in quality. Many of the issues with both dome ports and flat ports are mitigated a bit by the depth of field you get with the much smaller 1/3-2/3" sensors stopped down to f8 or f11 that most of us have used over the years but are exacerbated by the APS-C and APS-H sized sensors in the Red cameras and larger apertures with 3D.

Some of the aberrations may be correctable via software like they do with stills, but I don't how practical it is for 5K motion.
 
Well I guess my absolute excitement has now been absolutely crashed boo hoo :001_tt2:
 
Last edited:
Ross Isaacs said:
Well I guess my absolute excitement has now been absolutely crashed boo hoo :001_tt2:
Click to expand...

I never let any one tell me what can and can not be done, especially when with all do respect, neither Michael or Pawel have shown a better alternative, neither in build quality or capacity to handle 3D... ;)

Btw, if some one wishes to attack GATES they should do so on their company not on some one else's happy thread.. ;)
 
whoa...

whoa...

who said I purchased anything?

The rig, lenses and cameras already purchased by the production company and will be used for 95% of the movie that is DRY. Not to mention other productions after that. They are not a underwater production company.

The housing we will rent from Ketch or if not available other sources.


Look......people have shot 3D with un-syncd cameras....they have shot great movies with 16mm film (black swan) etc....



My point is, the level of acceptable image quality is subjective and is one that needs to be evaluated by the FX supervisor(post house), DP and Director.

To illustrate my point....

I was the stereographer on a $40 million feature called shark night 3D
http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/independent/sharknight3d/

This was our underwater camera rig.....an aging PACE side by side. Also used in James Cameron's underwater documentaries "Aliens of the Deep" and "Ghost of the Abyss."

Sony F950 cameras and Very bad quality Fujinon zooms ( i forget the focal range but they were very wide on the wide end) on a FLAT PORT.

sharknightlens.png


Open rear view of the rig

Picture-445.png


Coming out of the water on set.

Picture-555.png



This same rig/housing/camera/lens combination was also used in Resident Evil 3D underwater scenes and another movie with caves that I'm forgetting the name at the moment....

It has a massive 2.75" IO crappy lenses and flat port.

I most of the shots are done on the wide end.

We shot many charts underwater for VFX/post to correct the images.

The lens even above water displayed CA and significant barrel distortion on the wide end. Underwater it was even worse.

********PACE now has a new underwater rig.....they used it on "life of pi". I have first hand confirmation(from the camera crew) that they were using 16mm on a flat port.

point is.....all these features saw theatrical release. All these features were able to correct the distortion and other issues with the images this rig created. To what degree? Well pop in the DVD and watch for yourself.


Furthermore.....here is the "Panavision 3D splash box" we used on some above water scenes...........the "box" had just come back from shooting Pirates of the carribean 4 3D on RED one cameras.

The "box" features a large FLAT glass port". Lens most used in this setup was.....you guess it a 16mm. I have friends that worked with the box on pirates and can verify that.

We used the Box with a 18mm cooke zoom (18-40)

Here it is in all it's glory.

Picture-777.png


Picture-666.png




Did you watch pirates 4? Then you saw images created using this box and a flat port with a wide lens.



PAWEL,

I'm not doubting the laws of physics or your argument. My job is test stuff and present it to people above my pay grade regardless how ridiculous it might seam. (happens alot)

It's up to them (mostly VFX guys/post) to evaluate it work thier million dollar post tools on it and tell us if it's an image they can work with and make pretty.

That's all I'm saying.....


Based of my past expiriences (posted above) I think that with a 5k epic (more pixels and data for post) great lenses (ruby) instead of crappy fujinons that 16mm will be usable in a flat port. Who knows maybe 14mm end might be as well......


Besides....not that hard......put a 14mm lens on a RED...flat port.....take it underwater......shoot a checkerboard chart, color chart and a res chart. hand it off to post.....

won't cost me a dime.
 
Michael Hastings said:
Can someone explain why they are building a housing for a mirror rig rather than just making the housing the mirror rig?
Click to expand...

That is a pretty simply answer...

A 3D rig is not a simple thing.

Gates does not make 3D rigs......nor do they want to.

ET is too busy making 3D rigs to make an underwater housing......

Plus if the housing is the rig like you asked then you just spend a ton of money on something you can only used underwater.....if you purchase a housing and a rig then you can make waaaay more money on your investments.

Your rig can work dry projects when it's not in the water......($2700 a day for an atom at the moment)
Your underwater housing can work your projects plus it can be rented out to other productions even if you rig is out on another job.

To me this makes way more sense than making the housing the rig.

unless I misunderstood your question?
 
Go easy Ketch!

Those guys have posted some links to some serious papers that explain the physics of the problem. Within those physics is the solution.
I think the issues raised are clearly relevant.

KETCH ROSSi said:
I never let any one tell me what can and can not be done, ;)
Click to expand...

The laws of physics are not just anyone and their decision is final ;)

Looking briefly at the physics one can immediately see a problem. For UW3D I can really see the benefits of smaller imaging chips now; they solve a great deal more problems than I originally thought.

The distortion issues raised make me wonder if, when shooting flat-port+large format+beamsplitter 3D, if the 3D effect will be ruined by the various distortions. Correcting for large chromatic aberrations in post is a pain and more so when shooting for 3D. Then again I suspect by shooting at 5k the downsampling to 2k or 1080 will hide/mask any of the problems produced by the effects of microrefraction on a 3D image.

Testing is indeed needed.

I look forward to seeing the results and the wish the best of luck with the results. The idea of UW @ 5k and in 3D is something to look forward to but it's gonna take some work.

BTW nice pics from the field Pedro!

JohnF
 
JohnF said:
Go easy Ketch!

Those guys have posted some links to some serious papers that explain the physics of the problem. Within those physics is the solution.
I think the issues raised are clearly relevant.



The laws of physics are not just anyone and their decision is final ;)

Looking briefly at the physics one can immediately see a problem. For UW3D I can really see the benefits of smaller imaging chips now; they solve a great deal more problems than I originally thought.

The distortion issues raised make me wonder if, when shooting flat-port+large format+beamsplitter 3D, if the 3D effect will be ruined by the various distortions. Correcting for large chromatic aberrations in post is a pain and more so when shooting for 3D. Then again I suspect by shooting at 5k the downsampling to 2k or 1080 will hide/mask any of the problems produced by the effects of microrefraction on a 3D image.

Testing is indeed needed.

I look forward to seeing the results and the wish the best of luck with the results. The idea of UW @ 5k and in 3D is something to look forward to but it's gonna take some work.

BTW nice pics from the field Pedro!

JohnF
Click to expand...

John,

I never post any insulting replies on any ones threads, and it seems to me that they both are doing just that, love their work and that they do, but just not particularly happy,
when some one puts down the work of some one I also like and respect like GATES, and especially not particularly happy when some one points out that I might be an Idiot to spend so much money on gear that will not work.

My point is valid, so is theirs, but the physics of Law, have ben bent over and over, and I have seen Flat port rigs work on the 70mm IMAX3D UWH with fantastic results,
and I trust GATES many years and many products, experience to place my money on them for Deep Atom.

Never I mena to disrespect any one, nor do I let any one disrespect me directly or indirectly, then you know English is not my first language so I might take things out of contexts or miss express my self,
all I say is voice your opinion with respect to the opinion and work of others... ;)
 
OK so underwater discussion aside since I don't have a leg to stand on with that discussion, as far as the FoV and the Atom Medium vs. Large Mirrorbox:

We are waiting ourselves to get in a pair of EPICs and Ruby lenses in order to actually test what is the widest that can be achieved by both our medium and large mirror boxes. The Atom medium (standard) mirrorbox has a 120mm whereas the large (optional) mirrorbox has a 146mm lens opening. The Large mirrorbox uses the identical glass as our Quasar rigs. With the lens hood removed from the Optimo DPs we know that the lens can be pushed further into the mirrorbox allowing us to get wider. Prometheus has managed to get 16mm on the Atom medium box, which happens to be a 14" mirror. Once we test with the Ruby lenses we can detail just how wide we can get and even if a Dremel is needed to "massage" the mirrorbox, we will get as wide as we can. The Ruby 14's are on our hit list.
 
No problem Ketch!

The deep technical issues mentioned here can sound a bit cold but it's all part of problem solving.

As Pedro has already demonstrated with his posts sometimes one has to compromise ones design/modus operadi depending on the project specifications. Working with or around problems is part of the job.

All the best

JohnF
 
Joey R. said:
OK so underwater discussion aside since I don't have a leg to stand on with that discussion, as far as the FoV and the Atom Medium vs. Large Mirrorbox:

We are waiting ourselves to get in a pair of EPICs and Ruby lenses in order to actually test what is the widest that can be achieved by both our medium and large mirror boxes. .
Click to expand...

Joey, I pick up 2 matched Ruby's in an hour.

Expect me in the shop soon!!!

Since the project I'm working on bought an atom and ruby's I need to find out this information ASAP!!!

Next week I should have some results to talk about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top