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 :)

The Gentleman's Underwater Bubble Blower Thread

I suspect, Pawel monitors this thread, from a dreadfully banned distance. Never argue with City Hall, things go boom. The way of of the world I guess. That being said Rudi, those edges look awfully sharp. I am still very interested in an MTF comparison chart that measures standard visual acuity of the human eye, against all of the lens/dome things Pawel was rabbiting on about. Was he justified, or was he just frothing at the mouth?
 
Tom,

I figure Pawel does look in on us and I mentioned him not to make him feel forgotten, hope he can appreciate the mention :-)

Port: Shot with Nikon 10-24 @ 10mm, given that my port widens FOV by about 33%, the FOV of those shots is about 127 deg horizontal and close to 150 diagonal. Port was touching both the wall of the pool and the swimming board, so the center of the dome was about 1-2" from subject, lens front about 4-5". No diopter, sharp focus throughout. I still think I can narrow the diameter of the port to a smidgen under 5", right now is just under 6". But yes, I should build a test tank and run MTF tests against regular domes, etc, etc, AND I would very much like to apply some good coatings to the final units (Johnny cringes) for increased color rendition and contrast besides AR, all on the inside of the port. Right now I'm down quite a chunk of money and have only one port prototype which is already scratched, so I need to contemplate my next steps carefully. The most important thing in the near future will be to find a good manufacturing facility that can build me some mounts to test with a few different housings, but I have not found a mechanical building/prototyping partner as of yet.

If I get around to it, I'll post an R3D snap from one of those shots, the Reduser compression really does anything great disservice.

BTW, for Gates users, you'll get VERY good results with the Nikon 10-24, an 8" dome and a 286 PE, sharp and straighter than anything else out there.
 
Rudi, the BitTorrent article you posted is really encouraging; bypassing the standard distribution monoliths, and all contractual obligations that necessarily entail, is good news for the independents out there. According the article, BT has 1.5 million subscribers, huge in my view, although successfully monetizing a project remains a little unclear.

For the 4K community, Odemax still needs work, Johnny's link indicates the US is really the only place at the moment that has the bandwidth infrastructure to support it, but all in good time I suspect, things are changing rapidly.

Re your dome port, is that a Nikon 14/24-specific implementation, or can other lenses be used?
 
Tom,

What I find interesting about the bit torrent concept is the actual creation of the "bundle" a package to be streamed which contains marketing about your piece, behind-the-scenes, teasers, photos (easy to pull from red footage), and a few other goodies to entice interest on the final piece. You can then direct them to wherever you want the piece to play, youtube, vimeo, your own website, whatnot, and where you can charge a fee for viewing/downloading. The more freebies you include in the bundle, the more inclined they'll be to come and pay to watch your piece. I am, in fact, thinking about a couple of projects to approach bit torrent to test the bundle idea. As always, you need to have a final piece done and ready, or be en route to finishing it. The biggest problem I've found with aspiring film makers is the lack of an actual piece, whatever it is, but a finished product. Having a ton of awesome footage that is not structured as a coherent piece will get you nowhere, for even awesome footage to the beat of good music eventually becomes boring.

My port is tailored for rectilinear wide angle lenses, from 8mm to 18mm, the sweetest range being between 10mm and 14mm. Fisheyes don't do well with it, and frankly they don't need it. So far, the best matches for it are the Nikon 10-24, the Nikon 14-24, a few 14mm primes and then the Tokina 11-16. If you think about it, it will 1) broaden your FOV by 33% without much additional distortion, which is really unique, and it will yield the same optical performance as a 9" dome in an under 6" footprint, so just that I think will set it apart from regular domes. I see it as an intermediate step between a regular concentric dome and a fully corrected optic, something to get us moving in the right direction so to speak.
 
Rudi Herbert said:
Tom,

I figure Pawel does look in on us and I mentioned him not to make him feel forgotten, hope he can appreciate the mention :-)

Port: Shot with Nikon 10-24 @ 10mm, given that my port widens FOV by about 33%, the FOV of those shots is about 127 deg horizontal and close to 150 diagonal. Port was touching both the wall of the pool and the swimming board, so the center of the dome was about 1-2" from subject, lens front about 4-5". No diopter, sharp focus throughout. I still think I can narrow the diameter of the port to a smidgen under 5", right now is just under 6". But yes, I should build a test tank and run MTF tests against regular domes, etc, etc, AND I would very much like to apply some good coatings to the final units (Johnny cringes) for increased color rendition and contrast besides AR, all on the inside of the port. Right now I'm down quite a chunk of money and have only one port prototype which is already scratched, so I need to contemplate my next steps carefully. The most important thing in the near future will be to find a good manufacturing facility that can build me some mounts to test with a few different housings, but I have not found a mechanical building/prototyping partner as of yet.

If I get around to it, I'll post an R3D snap from one of those shots, the Reduser compression really does anything great disservice.

BTW, for Gates users, you'll get VERY good results with the Nikon 10-24, an 8" dome and a 286 PE, sharp and straighter than anything else out there.
Click to expand...

Rudi,

have you tested the nikon 14-24 2.8?
 
Jim,

I have. let's just say the best looking lens is the Nikon 10-24 and the 14-24 looks better than it does behind a regular dome, but that's about it. I tested the 14-24 behind a 12" dome once, a one off I found at a studio, and with my dome it looks about the same as it did with that 12" dome. Which is to say, better than any other dome but still some soft corners. Of course, with my dome the lens effectively becomes a 10-16mm and if you're really bent on using that lens for its superior contrast and color rendition, you can zoom in and discard the outer 5% of the edges and be left with plenty wide FOV and a sharp picture. Which is not too bad if your final delivery is HD and you're shooting Epic at 5K. But if you don't want to bother with any of that, then no, the lens is not as good as it is on land. Having said that, I have finally understood (well, my engineers have) why this lens does not look so good and it is related to its full frame image circle. I am in the process of designing a second adapter aimed exclusively at full frame lenses, which basically is based on the architecture of the Nikonos 15, and that adapter will allow use of the 14-24 with perfectly sharp edges.

Right now though, I really encourage anyone who has not looked at the Nikon 10-24 to give it a look. It is not just any other wide zoom, it is crazy sharp and straight, heads and shoulders above the Tokina 11-16. Never mind the minimum aperture of 3.5. I was doing a comparison against the Tokina 11-16, both wide open, and because the nikon is so much cleaner at 3.5 than the Tokina is at 2.8, I was able to push the shadows in the Nikon image further than I was with the Tokina. For my money, there is no better rectilinear lens out there than this nikon 10-24, and until I or anybody else manages to build an adapter for thee Nikon 14-24, I don't see any other DX/APS format lens taking the mantle from the Nikon 10-24.

But that's just me of course, a self confessed fanatic of wide angle and of sharp edges...
 
Rough Times for wildlife film makers: yeah, tell us about it: Bo Stehmeyer of Off the Fence Amsterdam talks about what options he sees for Wildlife Filmmakers where is the funding?...interesting, but nothing we don't already know....basically dried up funds and to think outisde the box
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-cHWjRawBU&list=UUzKqMnS0asUe_M8sNZGFpWw
 
And yet one more bit of "reality" from Peter Hamilton of Documentarytelevision.com : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj12wU53_g4&list=UUzKqMnS0asUe_M8sNZGFpWw
Really tells us that content driven docs are fewer and reality Charater driven docs or tv is on the rise--again nothing we can't see on the tube now....but MIP this year was a big bust for good blue chip docs....So now the big search to see where one can find funding for their nat. hist. docs....
 
And yet one more bit of "reality" from Peter Hamilton of Documentarytelevision.com : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj12wU53_g4&list=UUzKqMnS0asUe_M8sNZGFpWw
Really tells us that content driven docs are fewer and reality Character driven docs or tv is on the rise--again nothing we can't see on the tube now....but MIP this year was a big bust for good blue chip docs....So now the big search to see where one can find funding for their nat. hist. docs....
 
Rudi Herbert said:
BTW, for Gates users, you'll get VERY good results with the Nikon 10-24, an 8" dome and a 286 PE, sharp and straighter than anything else out there.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, he thinks... I own this lens. Didn't like it very much for stills w/ D300 & Subal housing. I was going to sell it, but now I guess I need to give it a second chance. Rudi, have your tried the Zeiss 15 T* Distagon? It's my new favorite - rectilinear, super sharp edges & corners, just not as wide as I'd like.

Off next week to do humpbacks with Jon Shaw in Tonga. I'm not sure I want to take a chance on missing a day using an un-tried (by me) lens...
R
 
Ron,

No, did not get a chance to use the Distagon 15 yet, but I've heard rave reviews about it and saw the video you posted. The Nikon 10-24 is an odd animal, it lacks some of the warmth and peculiarities of other Nikkors (though the skin tones are very creamy and pleasant as usual), it feels more clinical if you will, but it boasts the sharpest edges of any large sensor lens I've ever seen underwater. Kinda like, if your dome is clean and so is the water, it feels like there is nothing between camera and subject. Of course you may not like its look and that's fine, but if you can, bring it on your trip and whenever you get a chance to do a shore dive, test it out. For large subjects like whales is great, wide enough at close range not to need a fisheye, and with enough range to zoom in from afar. Me likes it, I need as wide an FOV as possible, but lenses are like religion, politics, women or PC-MAC, everybody likes something different...
 
Rudi Herbert said:
The Nikon 10-24 is an odd animal ---snip--- but it boasts the sharpest edges of any large sensor lens I've ever seen underwater.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Rudi. But, now I'm wondering if we're talking about the same lens. The one I have is a DX and I don't think it will cover the full S35 sensor. I lent it to a friend to try in case he wanted to buy it, so I don't have it handy to test...
R
 
Following up on Jarred's "plea" from a month ago.

Did anyone ever help him find a solution to the issue with color accuracy UW? Wondering if the Dragon will suffer from the same issue. Would be nice to get one of our experience UW guys with a DRAGON for some test UW work.
 
Few more Grab frames from 2013 VW shoot:

9382380314_c9b2d062ab_z.jpg
[/url] Big Gray Reef Sharks by RedCineUnderwater, on Flickr[/IMG]

9379597875_2b06ac6f24_z.jpg
[/url] Making a turn by RedCineUnderwater, on Flickr[/IMG]

9379599443_121d1bf908_z.jpg
[/url] Overhead view by RedCineUnderwater, on Flickr[/IMG]

9382385132_e94e09a780_z.jpg
[/url] VW Beetle Takes Flight by RedCineUnderwater, on Flickr[/IMG]

9379589985_c42f6ec259_z.jpg
[/url] Sugar Wreck by RedCineUnderwater, on Flickr[/IMG]

9382365888_523a68c6b7_z.jpg
[/url] In the Cockpit of the Beetle by RedCineUnderwater, on Flickr[/IMG]
 
Nice Johnny,

Good colors, though I detect a green bias?... and maybe that's what "saving" them, the predominance of green yielding cyan tones, like Bahamas and the Keys. It is those deep blue waters from Cayman and Hawaii that seem beyond help.

Looking good though, that the Sigma 15?
 
Hi Rudi,
....yes,always protecting from the magentas.....and yes, shot on the sigma 15mm fisheye.
On another note i saw a thread posted by Evin Grant using the Dragon and he talked about the new IR filter.....not sure what that is and if it may be something that we will benefit from. Sure would be nice with the dragons running around to have one of us have a chance at it to see what it yields underwater.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top