Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

  • 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

Some rigs work differently for different shoots and is why I have a few options and often use more than one of those on the same shoot in the same hour!

To answer some questions:

Greg, thanks for your offer. I am not sure if my previous posts were alluding to needing a housing, which I dont but thanks for the generous offer. Those SPL housings are great.

M Young, the Red really isnt hard to learn. Its digital camera with a screen that can tell you if you are doing it wrong. You can see it with your own etes whereas when people used to shoot film you had to have experience and know the magic to get a result. Now there really is no excuse. Dont go backwards in tech. That being said Sony has great sensors for shooting underwater from what I understand.

Phil, do some research. I think there might be an option for a sony A7r with Nikonos. Nauticam is your friend.

Rui, I face these lens choice issues every other job. My custom surf housing is restricted to custom ports, meaning only lenses that I specifically had a port made for will fit. There are so many cine lenses that it would be impossible with this kind of housing and the level of control I want in my system to have ports for them all. So there is a compromise and most DPs when they realise that shooting in the water means they might have to go a different route come around. Underwater, its not like you will see the benefit or one cine lens over another unless you compared superspeeds to master primes or something.
Same with the stills lens vs cine lens. Once they are behind a port underwater I dont think you can really tell what was what. Underwater behind a port, every lens will degrade slightly as Ryan suggested. You might get slightly better results with a super sharp master prime over a cheap still lens but its more about how the lens and port are setup to work with eachother that is more important in my experience.
The big wigs will likely use the best housings with the best lenses available to them and have those tuned to work optimally. My Nauticam housing is great because I can get my dome in the right spot with various extensions etc. You still need to know what you are doing and sometimes its down to millimeters of perfect alignment but that system works for me the best. I can use almost any lens you can think of and get really good results.
My DeepX and Nikonos setup is simply the smallest simplest housing I have found but there are limitations. Image is the key and this setup makes amazing images that you cant compare because its designed around the nikonos lenses and the high resolution of the Red Dragon with no other elements to interfere with the light hitting the sensor. Its great, however, and I am in the middle of this right now with a client and competing operators. There are very limited controls for the camera. With my setup I cant remotely control or change the camera. The lens is a prime and manual and my client was hoping to get a system where you can change your settings remotely from the surface and zoom in and out and adjust focus etc and the deepx is not that guy. BUT image wins in the end and we want the best image possible and for this particular shoot, and 99% of my shoots, I dont need to have an assistant 'pull focus' change settings etc. Another positive about deepx is to change a lens is as quick as it took you to read this sentence. There is not port to undo or gears to take off its literally dry the housing, like you would do with any other system, twist off lens 1 and twist on lens 2 and jump back in the water. Literally takes 45 seconds including drying the housing first. Cant beat that.
Would the big wigs jump ship and use something like this? I think they would if they were open to the idea of trying it. We get comfortable with what we know and what we know works. Underwater footage has been good enough all these years the way it is so why bother trying to make it a little bit better? Plenty of housing makers implemented the Nikonos system as an option but the big downside of not being too good above the surface means its not for everyone and not for every shoot.
 
Hi Lee,

Fantastic feedback. In your opinion is the magenta cast solved? DO you ever see it these days in some conditions and not others. I have read here in this thread that ALL cameras suffer from this magenta cast issue. Do you use the deep blue OLPF from Pawel? If so how does it do in the real world?

Thank you so very much for taking the time to give such detailed feedback.
 
Im not much of a colour science skeptic and I personally think the images on my Dragon are good. I use the Skintone OLPF myself.
I dont seem to be shooting very many deeper water shoots and most of it is shallow surf zone or pool type shoots where the H2o OLPF from Red or Pawels filters arent going to offer much and in some cases offer a negative aspect to the scene.
With shooting in the water, in my experience there are so many variables at different depths, different climates, different everything that a single OLPF might work great in blue water but maybe not so good in green water? Having RAW options and shooting stuff that will be seen to by a proper colourist helps a lot but getting things as close to perfect in camera is the goal.
As for magenta. You can see it for sure if youre really looking but its not what you imagine. To me, its much better on Dragon than Epic but your blue sky still isnt a deep rich blue, and more a little muted and I think that is causes by a slight bleed or red into the blue channel? Someone else might have a better opinion on that. From what I understand most camera will have some of this and others are better. For me, its not an issue. I love shooting on the Red.
 
I shot the following TV spot in the 'dreaded magenta' waters of Grand Cayman, the area where the problem was first reported on this thread. Although I did not notice it to any significant degree, the marine biologists and scientists, the talent for the shoot, thought it might be attributable to the presence of specific phytoplankton in the area. The photosynthetic activity of these animals requires the presence of chlorophyll in their cells, which means green. RGB complementary colors magenta and green provide high contrast and reinforce each other's brightness.

From Wiki:

Chlorophyll absorbs light most strongly in the blue portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, followed by the red portion.[3] Conversely, it is a poor absorber of green and near-green portions of the spectrum, which it reflects, producing the green color of chlorophyll-containing tissues.

Any color scientists out there, comment most welcome. Stacey?

Here is the spot, I personally would have graded a little differently, I think the editors, based on client input (deep, dark, and mysterious), did a reasonable job nonetheless:

https://www.calacademy.org/educator...-what-lies-400-feet-below-the-ocean’s-surface
 
But is the magenta cast issue gone now ? Is there any major difference between mx, x, dragon, helium underwater in terms of the magenta cast.

Honestly, it's been this whole magenta cast issue that turned me off RED and got me looking elsewhere. There is something comforting about the older technology that just works.

However the thing I see as being the major issue is the housing. This is going to cost more then the camera and is a long term thing that locks me into a camera for years to come. Big decision on which platform to go with.

I wish I could find an F23/F35/F65 used housing somewhere. I've looked and looked and cant find a thing. Bound to be one sitting on a shelf collecting dust somewhere I am sure. I would really like to spend a few dozens of hours shooting on something older first and then decide which RED suits my needs. Call me old school but I am still partial to 3 chip CCD and digiprimes. Its a big step to take that jump from what you know into the wild west of digital/r a w etc.
 
M_Young,

Magenta assue:
I can just talk about the Weapon Dragon 6K. So far I haven't got any agent issue. But so far I've only used it in the Atlantic's Portugal coastal waters and in several freshwater caves and lakes (and several pools).
But I've saw in several cases videos done with Pawel's True Blue and others with H2O OLPF where I can see definitely a magenta cast (even in ones that were made to show the benefits of those OLPF). Not sure if the color grade were done in an uncalibrated monitor or if those OLPF didn't solve the issue in those waters with those cameras.
Besides that, doing a proper WB with a gray card is the best starting point to achieve good colors anyway.
I'm using the Standard OLPF.

Housing:
I use Nauticam LT housing which I strongly recommend. With it you can put inside all DSMC2 cameras (Raven, Scarlet-W, Weapon Dragon Mg 6K, Weapon Dragon CF 6K, Epic-W, Weapon Helium 8K and probably Vista Vision 8K), so you'll no be stuck with just one camera model. The housing is very compact and versatile, with high ergonomics. If I were to buy a housing today, I'll buy it again. And it's not more expensive then the cameras (except for the lower end cameras models or if you buy them second hand).

Cheers,
 
Finally getting around to grading some of my Scarlet W shots from a recent dive in not very favourable conditions.
Vis was maybe 5 metres with surge and lots of floating particles, plus a fairly barren landscape.

This was shot using the standard OLPF, WB set to 5600k and using the Nikon 16-35 lens, housed in the Gates Pro Action Housing.

There was virtually no information in the red channel so grading was difficult and took quite a few nodes in Resolve to get to this point.
It was a good test to see how much you can push the R3D's.

The green sections are as shot and then transitioning to the grade. All done in Resolve 14.

Cheers Pete.

 
That was challenging imagery, nicely done Pete!

Any chance of a screen shot of your node tree (if labeled)?

Did you use NR, and did you do first light in RCX or was everything done in R14?

Cheers
 
Hi Rui,

Its definitely a big advantage to have a housing that can house multiple bodies. I will be buying used - too much of a depreciation hit to buy new. The used market is full to overflowing so lots of choices.

Does Nauticam also have the Nikonos lens option? I am really sold on that idea. I need to find out more about DeepX housings.
 
Hi Rui,

Its definitely a big advantage to have a housing that can house multiple bodies. I will be buying used - too much of a depreciation hit to buy new. The used market is full to overflowing so lots of choices.

Does Nauticam also have the Nikonos lens option? I am really sold on that idea. I need to find out more about DeepX housings.

Yes, there is:
http://www.nauticam.co.uk/n120-adaptor-for-nikon-r-uw-nikonos-rs-lenses-with-red-dsmc-lens-mount/

Now you have to find an RS 13mm in good condition from a trusty source...not easy, I suppose...
 
That was challenging imagery, nicely done Pete!

Any chance of a screen shot of your node tree (if labeled)?

Did you use NR, and did you do first light in RCX or was everything done in R14?

Cheers


Tom, thanks for the kind words mate. Took a while to work that clip but it was a great challenge .
I did the entire grade in Resolve. I actually don't use RCX at all. Resolve 14 has a lot of the Red workflow built in to it already so I like the fact that I don't have to swap between programs.
I set the NR in the Red Raw tab as medium and then added a small amount of Mid Tone Detail to sharpen it a little.

I didn't label the nodes on this clip mate. I didn't expect to spend so long working on it and before I knew it I was too engrossed to start all over again LOL.
Node%20Tree_zps6hqoshcu.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]
 


Yes, but would you buy a lens from a horny hairy nosed wombat ? (ebay seller name of the lens)

What is the difference between this lens and the earlier versions ? The RS 13mm looks like it has its own dome port built on.

To me the earlier version nikonos looks like the front element of the actual lens is in contact with the water - have I got that right?

Edit: how does the AF work on the RS lenses with RED bodies? Do you get autofocus or its turned off and one manually focuses ?
 
Last edited:
came across this in my research;

Underwater resolving power of Nikonos lenses

UW Nikkor 15mm f/2.8: 73 lines/mm centre @ f/8.
UW-Nikkor 28mm f/3.5: 72 lines/mm centre @ f/8
W-Nikkor 35mm f/2.5: 62 lines/mm centre @ f/8

....."An air-corrected wide-angle lens behind a dome port, no matter how expensive, will always give lower edge resolution than a properly water-corrected lens. This is due to the introduction of chromatic aberration at the air-water boundary. If the camera is a digital camera however, or if the film is to be scanned, it is possible to correct for chromatic aberration using software. If software correction is applied, a good air-corrected lens can be turned into a good water-corrected lens, and results similar to or better than those obtained with UW-Nikkor lenses can easily be achieved".......


....."The focal length of a lens in water is not directly comparable to the focal length of a lens working in air. The parameter of interest is the Angle of Coverage. E.g., the 15mm UW Nikkor has the same coverage (94°) as the 20mm Nikkor f/2.8 lens used on Nikon F series SLRs"......

W-Nikkor 35mm f/2.5
Standard lens, works in air and underwater.
Coverage: 62° in air, 46°30’ in water.
Resolution: 62 lines/mm, centre, at f/8.
Min focus: 0.8m. Min aperture f/22. Filter thread 58mm.
Normally used with extension tube or supplementary lens.


W-Nikkor 80mm f/4
Normally used underwater with the Nikonos close-up outfit (for 1:2.2 macro) - gives better resolution than the 35mm lens with extension tube.
Coverage: 30°20’ in air, 22°45’ underwater.
Min focus distance 1m. Min aperture f/22.
Filter thread 58mm.
Bare lens is difficult to focus underwater due to very small depth of field.

UW-Nikkor 28mm f/3.5
Moderate wide-angle rectilinear lens, offering easier focusing and greater resolution compared to the 35mm lens. Designed for underwater use, but gives acceptable results in air.
Resolution: 72 lines/mm, centre, at f/8.
Coverage: UW 59°. Min focus 0.6m. Min aperture f/22.
Filter thread 58mm.


UW-Nikkor 15mm f/2.8
Water-corrected rectilinear wide-angle lens.
Retro-focus optic compatible with TTL light-metering systems of Nikonos IVa and V.
test Resolution: 73 lines/mm, centre, at f/8.
cov Angle of coverage 94°.
Min focus distance 0.3m.
Smallest aperture f/22.
 
Yes, but would you buy a lens from a horny hairy nosed wombat ? (ebay seller name of the lens)

Oz sense of humor, should be fine. (The seller has 688 transactions with 100% positive feedback)

Hey Pete, Photobucket wants $399.99 from me just to view the image you posted, a bit rich for my blood mate, how about just a couple of beers instead and you email it to me? :beer:
 

Attachments

  • RU grab.jpg
    RU grab.jpg
    14.6 KB · Views: 0
came across this in my research;

Underwater resolving power of Nikonos lenses

UW Nikkor 15mm f/2.8: 73 lines/mm centre @ f/8.
UW-Nikkor 28mm f/3.5: 72 lines/mm centre @ f/8
W-Nikkor 35mm f/2.5: 62 lines/mm centre @ f/8

....."An air-corrected wide-angle lens behind a dome port, no matter how expensive, will always give lower edge resolution than a properly water-corrected lens. This is due to the introduction of chromatic aberration at the air-water boundary. If the camera is a digital camera however, or if the film is to be scanned, it is possible to correct for chromatic aberration using software. If software correction is applied, a good air-corrected lens can be turned into a good water-corrected lens, and results similar to or better than those obtained with UW-Nikkor lenses can easily be achieved".......


....."The focal length of a lens in water is not directly comparable to the focal length of a lens working in air. The parameter of interest is the Angle of Coverage. E.g., the 15mm UW Nikkor has the same coverage (94°) as the 20mm Nikkor f/2.8 lens used on Nikon F series SLRs"......

W-Nikkor 35mm f/2.5
Standard lens, works in air and underwater.
Coverage: 62° in air, 46°30’ in water.
Resolution: 62 lines/mm, centre, at f/8.
Min focus: 0.8m. Min aperture f/22. Filter thread 58mm.
Normally used with extension tube or supplementary lens.


W-Nikkor 80mm f/4
Normally used underwater with the Nikonos close-up outfit (for 1:2.2 macro) - gives better resolution than the 35mm lens with extension tube.
Coverage: 30°20’ in air, 22°45’ underwater.
Min focus distance 1m. Min aperture f/22.
Filter thread 58mm.
Bare lens is difficult to focus underwater due to very small depth of field.

UW-Nikkor 28mm f/3.5
Moderate wide-angle rectilinear lens, offering easier focusing and greater resolution compared to the 35mm lens. Designed for underwater use, but gives acceptable results in air.
Resolution: 72 lines/mm, centre, at f/8.
Coverage: UW 59°. Min focus 0.6m. Min aperture f/22.
Filter thread 58mm.


UW-Nikkor 15mm f/2.8
Water-corrected rectilinear wide-angle lens.
Retro-focus optic compatible with TTL light-metering systems of Nikonos IVa and V.
test Resolution: 73 lines/mm, centre, at f/8.
cov Angle of coverage 94°.
Min focus distance 0.3m.
Smallest aperture f/22.



Nikonos RS is the AF / SLR camera. Nikonos V (and VI, III, II...) were range finder cameras (without thought the lens viewing, nor autofocus).

From the days of when the Nikonos RS showed up on the market, I remember that only a few people got it (when compared to the number of people using middle/top range housed SLR cameras). And the expensive price of the Nikons RS was not the problem, since land SLR + housing was more expensive.
The problem was:

1 - Less versatility and limitation of use of the RS lenses (didn't focus out of the water; impossible to do under/over shoots)
2 - Angle of view insufficient (when compared to the widely used fisheye lenses)

And yes, the total concept of the RS system (lens and body), when you analise it, it becomes obvious that both lens and camera body were land versions inside a "tight fit housing and dome port". The camera had two doors: the first one to open the outer shell ("housing") and a second one to open the camera itself to change film. The same goes for the most useful lens (Nikonos RS 13mm): it is in fact a land lenses inside a very small dome port, as you can see here: http://wetpixel.com/articles/insight-the-nikonos-rs-13mm-conversion

So, in reality we are talking about the same thing: a land lens behind a dome port!
 
Yes, but would you buy a lens from a horny hairy nosed wombat ? (ebay seller name of the lens)

Oz sense of humor, should be fine. (The seller has 688 transactions with 100% positive feedback)

Hey Pete, Photobucket wants $399.99 from me just to view the image you posted, a bit rich for my blood mate, how about just a couple of beers instead and you email it to me? :beer:

Ouch $399......what photo hosting sites are people using? Doesn't look like I can attach a photo directly to the forums.
 
Back
Top