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 :)

Underwater Bubble Blowers User Group Thread NEW

Status
Not open for further replies.
The new Gates Deep Epic is quite a piece of kit....anyone that holds it will know the HUGE amount of effort and engineering that went into this housing. If you think or thought Deep Red was well made, the Deep Epic is "precision" built around the epic. Gears are remarkably smooth and precise; the redmote works flawlessly with the touch controls on the back shell. All i can say is well done to the engineering team at gates.
 
Looks large and heavy. What's the typical displacement and weight of Deep Epic with camera, lens and batteries?
 
What lens were you using when you shot the divers at 3:50 ish, looks pretty soft?
What did you shoot the Mantas with? They looked beautiful
 
Jon Shaw said:
What lens were you using when you shot the divers at 3:50 ish, looks pretty soft?
What did you shoot the Mantas with? They looked beautiful
Click to expand...

That's the 12-24 Jon. I didn't like it either.
Mantas are Tokina 10-17.

J-
 
Tom Hamilton said:
This is the first negative report I've seen concerning the Nikon 14-24. A wide range of lenses were tested extensively, link below, this particular one scored highly in all respects.

A number of underwater shooters on this forum also rate it an excellent piece of glass. Rudi, your comments?

Is this possibly a Gates dome port issue? Pawel, have you tested this lens behind your Cineport?


http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...h-Breathing-amp-Flare-and-Part-5-Impressions)
Click to expand...

12-24 is a completely different lens than the 14-24 you have,

12-24 is half the price, F4 max , made for Aps-c, not full frame

FROM NIKON:
12-24mm f/4G ED-IF AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor AF Lens

Optimized for Nikon (DX Format) D1, D2-Series, D100 & D70 Digital Cameras.

Note! DX lenses are NOT recommended for use with 35mm, "full-frame" digital, or APS (H) SLR cameras. These lenses can be attached to film-based 35mm SLRs, but will not work properly due to the reduced size of the image circle.

Epic 5K is approximately APS-H size sensor about halfway in size between the APS-C (nikon DX) and traditional film full frame 36mmx24mm.
 
I also shot recently with the 14-24 in Antarctica and will say this: sharp in the center but extremely soft as you move out to the corners....for this reason the tokina fisheye is a much better lens...or any fisheye behind a dome for that matter. I now have the Simga 15mm Full frame fisheye that i'll soon try....But 14-24 IS a great lens in air, just not behind a dome port.
 
Johnny Friday said:
I also shot recently with the 14-24 in Antarctica and will say this: sharp in the center but extremely soft as you move out to the corners....for this reason the tokina fisheye is a much better lens...or any fisheye behind a dome for that matter. I now have the Simga 15mm Full frame fisheye that i'll soon try....But 14-24 IS a great lens in air, just not behind a dome port.
Click to expand...

This is a function of dome ports since the virtual image is curved, the curve is somewhat matched by the fisheye curvature so not as much of an issue with fisheyes. The issue will be true with any high quality lens, and also much more apparent at larger apertures.

Either approach is a compromise, either the "fisheye" look or potential loss of edge sharpness. The only solution is a corrected underwater optic - which we may see soon.

Curious what apertures were you shooting in Antarctica? What dome?
 
Michael Hastings said:
This is a function of dome ports since the virtual image is curved, the curve is somewhat matched by the fisheye curvature so not as much of an issue with fisheyes. The issue will be true with any high quality lens, and also much more apparent at larger apertures.

Either approach is a compromise, either the "fisheye" look or potential loss of edge sharpness. The only solution is a corrected underwater optic - which we may see soon.

Curious what apertures were you shooting in Antarctica? What dome?
Click to expand...

That was actually my point....but yes Mike. the dome and fisheye work very well together (especially the tokina lens and r1)...We've been able to get away with using rectilinear lenses with smaller sensors behind the dome up till now....but with larger sensors, the falloff at the corners is huge. That said, easy enough to crop and in most cases in the world of telvision, the audience rarely even notices...but as shooters trying to put out the best image quality it is important for us to know and how to handle it....i'm very pleased shooting fisheye behind the dome on most projects now. Results are superior to rectilinier lens. that said, i've had plenty of directors ask me to shoot with master primes and they adjust all in post.

....was using an Aquatica dome port (yours) and we were shooting 5.6 to 8 split.
...and this was on R1 with mx sensor. NOT Epic.
 
Johnny Friday said:
...that said, i've had plenty of directors ask me to shoot with master primes and they adjust all in post..
Click to expand...

Indeed, most directors have no idea that using master primes won't change anything and they can't "fix it in post" You can't add resolution or contrast if it is not there.

I personally don't like the fisheye. I love undistorted, flat and immersing feel of rectiliner lenses.

Unfortunately all terrestial lenses suffer from field curvature, chromatic aberrations and distortions behind a dome (and even more so behind flat) ports.
To add insult to injury, field curvture only gets worse if the sensor size increases. What we could get away with 2/3" sensor (12 mm wide) goes all pear shape with 30mm wide sensor. Large dome can help. CinePort has 12" curvature diameter. But, it does not eliminate the problem. It will get even worse with Dragon 36mm sensor. Much worse.

Another significant problem is that most terrestial wide angle lenses perform VERY poorly at close distance. When dome port is used, virtual image is projected just inches in front of the dome. The effect is large distortions, CA and fuzzy edges. Again, there is very little that can be done about it. Land lenses are not designed to be placed behind huge negative diopter that is formed by the dome immersed in water. This is something most directors have no idea about...

If there is anyone wanting to test their dome port/flat port/lens combination in controlled environment using SFR+ charts and Imatest software, please contact me. I'm expecting to have my measurement test rig replaced in 2 weeks time. Any point within the frame can be measured and assessed for MTF50, MTF20, CA, distortions and other characteristics. The results are industry standard, comparable and repeatable. I can also help understanding and interpreting the results and translating them to what DOPs often refer to as particular Lens Look.
 
Jon Shaw said:
Johny have you used the Tokina 11-16 on your R1 or Epic? Would be interested to see how that looked?
Click to expand...
Hi John,
Tokina is an EXCELLENT looking image. I cannot take credit for recommending this lens either. Howard Hall told me about it and took me many months to even try it. NOW...i RARELY will shoot anything BUT that lens....Used on several NG docs in the past as well as a few commercials....the fisheye effect behind a dome is not what you would think....as long as you are not 12" from a large animal...the world looks normal--NOT fisheye....I used this lens on many R1 shoots...and it's my favorite lens. With the Epic and larger sensor, the tokina still works, but suffers from CA...so you have to push in on it or crop in post. That said, i'm trying the sigma 15mm fisheye. Results for many photographers tells me this is a lens worthy of shooting...i'll know more when i shoot it since i just bought it.....

Glad to email you a few tiffs.....
Johnny
 
Johnny Friday said:
That was actually my point....but yes Mike. the dome and fisheye work very well together (especially the tokina lens and r1)...We've been able to get away with using rectilinear lenses with smaller sensors behind the dome up till now....but with larger sensors, the falloff at the corners is huge. That said, easy enough to crop and in most cases in the world of telvision, the audience rarely even notices...but as shooters trying to put out the best image quality it is important for us to know and how to handle it....i'm very pleased shooting fisheye behind the dome on most projects now. Results are superior to rectilinier lens. that said, i've had plenty of directors ask me to shoot with master primes and they adjust all in post.

....was using an Aquatica dome port (yours) and we were shooting 5.6 to 8 split.
...and this was on R1 with mx sensor. NOT Epic.
Click to expand...

Johnny:

Was that the six inch or 8" acrylic or the glass dome (FYI the acrylics are aquatic, the glass dome is our own)

I need to do a little more testing with the fisheyes to get a better feel for them. As you know, in the Betacam, F900, Varicam days all of the superwides we normally used were rectilinear and as Pawel mentioned the 2/3: sensor gave greater depth of field so edge sharpness was a little better. I started wondering a bit about fisheyes with Red when I saw this shot that Duncan Brake took of the tiger shark and redone housing - taken with a nikon dslr and the tokina 10-17. Then you really piqued my interest at DEMA when you told me about using the 10-17.



Pawel Achtel said:
Another significant problem is that most terrestial wide angle lenses perform VERY poorly at close distance. When dome port is used, virtual image is projected just inches in front of the dome. The effect is large distortions, CA and fuzzy edges. Again, there is very little that can be done about it. Land lenses are not designed to be placed behind huge negative diopter that is formed by the dome immersed in water. This is something most directors have no idea about...
Click to expand...

While it may be generally true that lenses aren't designed for near focus, there are many that are, in fact Nikon has a number of lenses where they feature CRC Close Range Correction and although that specific technique may not be used on the 14-24 it is a very modern design with multiple aspheric elements and focuses down to 10.8 inches. The setting for focusing on the virtual image for a subject at 3 feet actual subject distance is about 17.5 inches which is almost halfway up the focus range of the lens. (i.e. when you turn the focus ring it is almost half of the turning radius) so I don't think we are really pushing it to extremes.

I would also like to test some diopters to correct the focus range, since as you point out, the dome creates a about a -3 diopter and I'd like to see how a positive diopter might offset the negative.
 

Attachments

  • Heliostiger-redone.jpg
    Heliostiger-redone.jpg
    88.9 KB · Views: 0
Mike, was using the 8" acrylic dome....with the Nikon 14-24...i However use it all the time on my glass dome port and it performs extremely well....as i said, best lens in the kit as far as i'm concerned...all rectilinear lenses with these large sensors have their problems with fall off around the edges...this is merely a fact, but good shots are good shots....but the fisheye is nice....to say the least. Yes, a diopter would be nice and we considered that, but how would you mount this on the 14-24?? it's got a dome shape at front and no practical way to mount a diopter....like you can on say the 16-85 Nikon or other lenses with screw on ends.....I love the 14-24 topside...but no big fan underwater....try the tokina and you'll know why...

Johnny
 
Mike, wide angle lenses can usually close focus very well. However, the distortions, field curvature and CA suffer badly. I tried both MP14 and Tokina 11-16 and both exhibited massive distortions and poor corner sharpness (no problem focusing close and centre sharpness was very good). Add diopter to it and it falls apart even more. The only solution (other than using submersible lenses designed to close focus and corrected for underwater from ground up) is to make a huge dome, even larger than the CinePort. But then, you can't get close to some subject anyway and it becomes very expensive (must be ground from a huge block of solid optical glass) and impractical. Can't win. :)

I will try to demonstrate this soon.
 
Johnny Friday said:
Mike, was using the 8" acrylic dome....with the Nikon 14-24...i However use it all the time on my glass dome port and it performs extremely well....as i said, best lens in the kit as far as i'm concerned...all rectilinear lenses with these large sensors have their problems with fall off around the edges...this is merely a fact, but good shots are good shots....but the fisheye is nice....to say the least. Yes, a diopter would be nice and we considered that, but how would you mount this on the 14-24?? it's got a dome shape at front and no practical way to mount a diopter....like you can on say the 16-85 Nikon or other lenses with screw on ends.....I love the 14-24 topside...but no big fan underwater....try the tokina and you'll know why...

Johnny
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not locked into any lens and will definitely try the tokina 10-17 - just trying to explore all the options. As a manufacturer, I think I have to support rectilinear as well as possible. For that, and full coverage on 5K and the fact that I have been EXTREMELY impressed with the quality of the 14-24 in all of my topside test, plus that it is available in both PL and Nikon mounts, it has been getting most of my attention for rectilinear lenses. (Not to mention that we are working on a full water corrected optic specifically designed for the 14-24 . I don't want to hype this too much until it's done and tested, but the plan is to make it retrofittable to the REDONE and Epic housings, and if we pull it off it could be the ultimate answer.)

As far as a diopter, I was going to try it first on the ruby since it has a large threaded front, but it isn't that hard to make an oversized diopter for the Nikon version of the 14-24 - it would be a slip-on design (kind of like how they do the lens cap), and I've done this before for the superwide Fujinon we used with the Varicam.

My biggest concern with the 10-17 is whether it fully covers 5K. I'd like to see some sample shots or try some of the full frame fisheyes like the new 8-15 Canon L and the older Nikon 16. And since Canon came out with the 8-15 just recently, I assume Nikon will put something similar out pretty soon - that 16mm fisheye is pretty long in the tooth (came out in 1992 I think). A high end fisheye zoom from Nikon with their modern glass and the Nano coatings could be pretty awesome.
 
John, What mount adapter for the EPIC PL mount are you using to to able to use the Nikon Lenses with the Deep Epic?

Thanks,
John McCord
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top