Underwater Bubble Blowers User Group Thread NEW

[Pawel Achtel]

Hi Pawel, where will this course be?

Sunny Tasmania - the best diving spot in the world

Given sufficient numbers, we can organise courses in other locations, including Northern America, at a later date.

If anyone is interested, please send me an email with preferred locations and I will send you an invitation when we have something in your area.

 

[Michael Maes]

Sunny Tasmania

Hmmmm.... tempting but.... a bit far from that other small -sunny- island Grand Cayman ;-)

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Hugh,

I think you are close, but not quite

My tests with Master Prime 14mm were to isolate the effect of the dome port and the lens itself as I regard the 14mm as a reference lens. I have done tests with Tokina 11-16mm and I have done some limited tests using Zeiss Standard Speed 14mm - all with inferior results. I'm happy to post them, but I don't think they will bring much to the debate.

We do know that fisheye lenses do not suffer the same fate behind the dome as rectilinear lenses do, so fish-eye and semi-fisheye lenses would give better results behind a dome port. I think the vast majority of people using domes with large sensors have worked that out by trial and error with some good results and nice images.

An important consideration are lens distortions and performance at close focusing distance, which is another (very) significant factor that makes the images look so poor behind a dome. As you know, dome port produces virtual image just inches befrore the lens. It is that virtual image that the lens needs to focus on. Unfortunately, most wide angle lenses do not perform very well at short focusing distances, further deteriorating the images obtained with a dome port.

Yes, you are right, there may be a lens that performs better at close focusing distance than the MP 14mm does. This is entirely possible. But, given all the other challanges of a dome port, this is not the solution that, in my view, is going to deliver dramatically better outcomes.

The final result is only going to be as good as the weakest link in the chain and there aren't as big choice of super wide lenses that would perform well on land, let alone underwater.

The wider the angle, the more problems we face with the dome.

My personal preference for motion picture is relatively moderate wide angle, rectilinear lens producing flat and sharp image. I find that flatness and lack of distortion very "immersive", particularly on a large screen. I was never big fan of super wide lenses for anything more other than either still pictures or static shots (which I'm trying to avoid as much as i can). A slightly narrower angle allows me for more camera movement and panning, which allows me to design the shot with the beginning, middle and an end. Camera movement actually enhances the perception of depth and space and this is the reason why 70 -90 degree angle works for me better as a work-horse lens rather than a 100 degree plus lens. I regard the super-wide thing a purely still photography advantage and find it very limiting for motion picture. This is, of course, totally subjective and personal perspective

I think your idea of using Sony DSC-RX1 and Nikonos lenses is an interesting one, but I think a more realistic would be Alpha SLT-A99 and the NEX-VG900 because they feature exchangable lens. If there was Nikonos capable housing available for the Sony Alpha SLT-A99 I would probably get one for production stills and the "making of" footage.

But, my own interest is strictly in RED Epic and underwater cinematography for large screen, particularily 3D, and my current solutions meet my requirements 100%. Yes, I will get the 6k Dragon (and perhaps 8k FF successor) with confidence that my underwater optics are no longer the limitation.

Finally I can focus on film making and story telling, where my biggest passion is

 

[Will Keir]

Pawel,

If Brett from Band Pro ever e-mails me back about demoing the Deep X underwater housing, I might just hook up with you when you come to California. Sounds like an awesome experience, very interested in re breather training.

What NA locations were you thinking about?

Sunny Tasmania - the best diving spot in the world

Given sufficient numbers, we can organise courses in other locations, including Northern America, at a later date.

If anyone is interested, please send me an email with preferred locations and I will send you an invitation when we have something in your area.

 

[Will Keir]

Finally I can focus on film making and story telling, where my biggest passion is

Pawel, a perfect pathway for you to travel. Make the solution and leave the problems/challenges to the past.

Yes, I will get the 6k Dragon (and perhaps 8k FF successor) with confidence that my underwater optics are no longer the limitation. P.S. Carrots are good for the eyes.

Is the Nikonos lens on the deep epic going to be able to cover 6k and 8k?

 

[Michael Hastings]

snip: A slightly narrower angle allows me for more camera movement and panning, which allows me to design the shot with the beginning, middle and an end. Camera movement actually enhances the perception of depth and space and this is the reason why 70 -90 degree angle works for me better as a work-horse lens rather than a 100 degree plus lens. I regard the super-wide thing a purely still photography advantage and find it very limiting for motion picture. This is, of course, totally subjective and personal perspective

I really wonder if you would have said that a couple years ago when you had the same level of enthusiasm for your cineport and master prime 14mm and previously with 2/3" High def cameras and superwide lenses.

I'm not sure how a narrower angle generally allows for more camera movement and panning. It is interesting that you say that now the system you sell is limited to just 64 degrees on Red 4K and about 75 degrees on Epic 5K and 6K ... (measured diagonally - even less on side to side - 58 and 69 degrees)

This doesn't seem to be the preference of any of the major underwater professional shooters around, all of whom use systems that have the ability to get the same quality of image from lenses ranging from 60 degrees or less out to 115 degrees with rectilnears and much wider with fisheyes - so they could obviously choose the angle that they prefer. And even in the review you have touted, Bob Cranston stated that (and I quote): "The Nikon 15mm lens looked good, but was not wide enough for my liking."

Again, we all get the edge sharpness advantage, but most of the other stuff you are promoting to mitigate the issue of the very narrow angle that comes from using the Nikonos, (designed for a full 36x24mm sensor but used on DeepX on the much smaller sensors used with RED 4K, 5K and 6K), contradicts what you used to say. And it's a little frustrating to have you muddying the waters all the time in such a self serving way.

Why don't you just push Jim to come out with the full frame 36x24mm sensor (presumably approaching 8K) - where the advantage of using the Nikonos 15mm will be true and undeniably better than any optic combination we have today.

Is the Nikonos lens on the deep epic going to be able to cover 6k and 8k?

I can answer that: yes it will cover 6K since RED 6K is only slightly larger than 5K since they moved to smaller pixels and made it so it can replace the current Epic 5K sensor. The Nikonos will also cover 8K if (as we presume) it will be a 36x24mm full frame 35mm sensor - basically the same format that the Nikonos 15 was designed for and at that point it will provide the 94 degree FOV it was designed for as well. And will be much more attractive as a general use underwater wide angle optic. And at that point will be supported by myself (and probably others) since we actually were the first to propose use of the 15 back in 2007 but never implemented because the trade offs of having to make the front of the housing replace the lens mount of the camera wasn't worth it with just a 64 degree FOV. (and also seemed to be prohibited by RED)

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Pawel,

If Brett from Band Pro ever e-mails me back about demoing the Deep X ...

I think Brett was away and most others are at IBC showing a DeepX. I only got message from Brett yesterday after he has been away. I'm sure you will hear from them after they come back from IBC and after the dust settles.

I may be coming to US to NAB and most definetely to Jackson Hole Wildlife Film Festival next year, so I may be able to arrange something in LA on one of those trips.

Is the Nikonos lens on the deep epic going to be able to cover 6k and 8k?

You mean: DeepX , yes Nikonos 15mm will cover FF 36mm x 24 mm and from what I can see there should be no trouble resolving 6k and possibly even 8k. Using an optical lens projector that I developed for eveluating Nikonos glass, it looks very promising...

This doesn't seem to be the preference of any of the major underwater professional shooters around, all of whom use systems that have the ability to get the same quality of image from lenses ranging from 60 degrees or less out to 115 degrees with rectilnears and much wider with fisheyes - so they could obviously choose the angle that they prefer. And even in the review you have touted, Bob Cranston stated that (and I quote): "The Nikon 15mm lens looked good, but was not wide enough for my liking."

What Bob Cranston said was that DeepX was on the top of his list, so obviously his criticism as to the angle of view wasn't that limiting or important to him as the overall package and other advantages that Nikonos optics and DeepX offer.

If, as you say, Bob Cranston feels limited with 75 degrees, why is he promoting and shooting with a rig limited to less than 50 degree diagonal angle: the Deep Atom? As you may know, ET Atom BS covers maximum 65 degrees on land which, after going through a flat port, results in less than 50 degrees diagonal and only about 40 degrees horizontal field of view after you corrected for the geometric distortions of the flat port. Why no one (except me) finds this limiting?!

Sorry, your argument, Mike, sounds very lame to me

There was one very important feature, though, that Peter Cragh suggested and Bob immediately jumped in with a big grin on his face. It was brilliant and simple, Peter Cragh style: flip DeepX upside down and achive low angles like it was never possible before. This can be done in less than a minute because handles and railing are both reversible. Both Bob and Peter were extremely keen on the ability to do that as neither his HD-CAM rig nor any other rig that he knew allowed for such flexibility.

And, Bob did shoot with extremely wide Sea&Sea 12mm on DeepX, which BTW we decided to slap on the last minute just as Bob was getting ready to jump in the water for the second time. It's all about having choices raher than not having them at all.

This doesn't seem to be the preference of any of the major underwater professional shooters around, all of whom use systems that have the ability...

I do not care what other "major" underwater professional shooters think, say or do. I'm not a follower and I have my own opinion

It is interesting that you say that now the system you sell is limited to just 64 degrees on Red 4K and about 75 degrees on Epic 5K and 6K ... (measured diagonally - even less on side to side - 58 and 69 degrees)

I don't know why you chose 4k crop when 5k has been available on Epic since day one. If you want to go wide, you shoot 5k, which is very easy to understand.

The FOV for Nikonos 15mm is 76 degrees diagonal and 70 degrees horizontal at 5k.

DeepX can use lenses other than Nikonos 15mm, including dome port for those misled souls that find such configuration more appealing. The limit is only if you have to use either a dome or flat ports and that limit is that you can not resolve even fraction of the Epic sensor regardless of the lens that you use.

Why don't you just push Jim to come out with the full frame 36x24mm sensor (presumably approaching 8K if - where the advantage of using the Nikonos 15mm will be true and undeniably better than any optic combination we have today.

I agree

I think it is coming quicker than we think. Nikon is selling 36 Megapixel FF camera already and Canon is rumoured to have a 46 Megapixel camera soon. The landscape is changing quickly and Jim Jannard is not asleep. I think any manufacturer investing now in underwater optics specifically designed for S35mm frame would be at risk of having an obsolete product possibly as quickly as 6-8 months from now.

 

[Zeb B]

Is there a current comparison matrix of the available UW housings for Epic? I want to use it with my Arri 8R and Angie 16-42 lenses. Anyone run a workshop on UW filming techniques or offer private lessons? I'm in SoCal and Hawaii but can travel anywhere for instruction. Would like to shoot for personal work and stock.

 

[Johnny Friday]

Josh,
Might check at: http://www.digital3dsea.com/index.php Bob is doing 3d instruction, and i suspect may do 2d.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Is there a current comparison matrix of the available UW housings for Epic? I want to use it with my Arri 8R and Angie 16-42 lenses. Anyone run a workshop on UW filming techniques or offer private lessons? I'm in SoCal and Hawaii but can travel anywhere for instruction. Would like to shoot for personal work and stock.

Hey Josh, good to see you at the bubble blowing thread.

Unfortunately all rectilinear wide angle lenses designed for land use perform very poorely when placed behind dome or flat ports underwater. The wider the lens, the worse the result. It is the underwater ports that introduce substantial distortions, image plane curvature, strong chromatic aberration, astigmatism and other defects that impair their performance underwater. Historically, this was not a big issue until large size sensors were introduced, which made image plane curvature affecting the quality quite badly.

For this and other reasons, Bob Cranston's (to whom Jonny pointed you to) and my first choice for Epic housing is our DeepX, which uses submersible lenses instead. These lenses are currently the only underwater optics able to out-resolve the Epic sensor and produce no distortions or other defects associated with underwater ports.

It was because of those optical limitations I have designed and developed this housing. I was filming with land lenses before and by measuring their performance underwater, I came to a conclusion that regardless of what land lens I placed behind a flat or dome port, the results were unsatisfactory: as in the optics fails to resolve even standard definition quality across the entire frame. This is not immediately obvious to most cinematographers, but it is well covered in our course including practical examples.

We do have comprehensive comparison table, which I'm happy to send you by email.

I also provide training in underwater cinematography with particular focus on image quality, optics, lighting and safety as I posted here a few messages back. It's free to our customers.

I am running one in sunny Tasmania in December, but I would be happy to possibly arrange for one in Sydney at an earlier date as there has been good interest so far.

 

[Zeb B]

Thanks for the quick response Gents! Pawel - would love to co-host a workshop with you at my place on the northshore of Kauai maybe in February. Anyone other RED shooters in Hawaii out there?

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Josh,

Without bursting anyone's bubbles here and suggestions of courses and housings, often offered by the same person, I would suggest you first make sure your diving skills are up to snuff. Are you a certified diver, do you have a couple hundred dives experience at least? If so, great, then you'll be able to get in the water and concentrate on film making, the diving part of the job having become second nature by now. If not, then my advice is to dive, dive, dive, and then, dive some more. YOU CANNOT BE A GOOD UNDERWATER CINEMATOGRAPHER WITHOUT BEING AN EXCELLENT DIVER.

I used to run courses on Freediving Cinematography, that being my specialty, and perhaps will start running them again next year. These courses focus more on how to improve your breath hold diving skills and how to adapt them to filming, including the use of small and large housings, safety, gear considerations, etc, etc, etc. Once these courses resume, they will be announced on UnderwaterCinema.com but, again, before taking this or that course, make sure you are very competent and very comfortable underwater. If you are, then 60% of the battle is already won.

 

[Zeb B]

@Rudi
Yup . . . PADI open water/nitrox certified with my son last week. Filmed the whole event on a little P&S cam. Not bad results but can iimmediately see the need for better equip. Shooting Raw to tweak WB in post seems a basic need.

BTW: I never wait until I do something 200 times before adding on the next challenge. That would suck

 

[Tom Hamilton]

BTW: I never wait until I do something 200 times before adding on the next challenge. That would suck

Congrats on your PADI open water cert Josh. Avoid over-confidence if you can, that's what kills most of 'em. In this game, 200 is still very green.

 

[Zeb B]

Also an IFR pilot with a couple thousand turbine hours, SCCA licensed, ASA106 certified, rock climber, surfer etc . . . Scuba not my first rodeo with risk management or multi-tasking. Not picking up a camera until after 200+ dives is ridiculous - that be some slow ass learning curve mate. The whole point diving in Palau or Borneo would be to film it. Both places I plan to visit and film on RED within 6 months. I'll text "YOLO" to you while diving there . . . and hopefully don't crash like a rap star:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...tweet-yolo-dies-car-crash-dui-_n_1880348.html

Cheers!

 

[Mark_Thorpe]

Hey Josh, friendly advise mate, I lived in Palau for four years and dived daily with big and small camera rigs. Get yourself picked up by a nice transient Ocean current that bounce off the reef all over the walls of Palau. Deal with that, upwellings, violent down currents and the potential to get swept off the reef means not just your dive skills but your ability to read the reef needs to be honed. Had friends drift out for 36hrs, not fun to fight off Tiger Sharks and Oceanics almost hourly. Over confidence is the kicker.

You'll have a blast though, Palau in my opinion is (almost) the best place on the planet for diving.

Cheers,
Mark.

 

[Zeb B]

You guys are funny. The true risks in life come from poor diet, sedentary lifestyle and substance abuse - not air travel, terrorists or scuba diving. That's assuming you weren't genetically shortchanged by your fam tree to begin with - gifting you with early age diabetes or heart disease. To that guy who fought off sharks for 36 hours . . . "stay thirsty my friend". I would love to buy you a drink and hear the whole story of your interesting life ;-)

 

[Brad Bestelink]

Michael
Please respond to my mails.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

..... The true risks in life come from poor diet, sedentary lifestyle and substance abuse - not air travel, terrorists or scuba diving. That's assuming you weren't genetically shortchanged by your fam tree to begin with - gifting you with early age diabetes or heart disease. To that guy who fought off sharks for 36 hours . . . "stay thirsty my friend". I would love to buy you a drink and hear the whole story of your interesting life ;-)

that's too funny....and true :laugh:

Re Course: February may be a possibility if we have enough participants

 

[Pawel Achtel]

...I defer to Johnny here, he's the guy that, despite all of that, reliably manages to come back with the NG stuff, and all limbs intact. Johnny's plan B also has a plan C, I've seen that diving with him.

There is a substantial prep/knowledge requirement that must not be ignored. That's all I'm saying mate, just be careful. And keep us posted

Are you or Johnny properly qualified to provide safety training or advice?