Underwater Bubble Blowers User Group Thread NEW

[Ross Isaacs]

11-16 Duclos

11-16 Duclos

I'll chime in about the 11-16 as well....used it on a shoot in Alaska and was VERY HAPPY with results. HOWEVER i also encountered significant drop-off of sharpness and detail as you move towards the outer edges of the dome. BUT that said, it really did not distract from the image...merely a remark on what i experienced. However, compared to the Arri 8r....the 8r is so much sharper....so i'd have to say it has to do a lot with the optics itself rather than just the width of the lens. $30k vs. $1500 (i can't recall what i paid)---BUT, i'm very happy with my 11-16 PL mount and it's in my bag for good.

Johnny

I will have to disagree with you guys as I use the Gates Deep Red glass dome and when you see the actual moving pictures I can assure you there is edge to edge sharpness. I would never use acrylic. There maybe relative motion blur from movement but the images are very sharp. You can't really judge the sharpness based on degraded screen grabs posted here. I think you will find there is far less distortion using a glass dome as the way an acrylic dome is blown is such a rough process there are always going to be flat spots by the nature of the process. The refractive index stays constant at every point of the glass dome as long as the manufacturer of the housing has calculated his nodal point correctly relative to the curve of the dome and the position to the optical axis.

 

[jim kozmik]

Hello from Canada Johnny,I have the basic Aquavideo housing and was wondering what u have done to yours and what lenses you are shooting with....we are thinking of using the red one for our new dive season for The Blue Realm tv series on Animal Planet and Travel Channel...my email is Kozmikunderwater@gmail.com thanks again.jim kozmik

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Yea, I guess focusing on fishies while diving might be hard enough as is.

 

[Michael Hastings]

I will have to disagree with you guys as I use the Gates Deep Red glass dome and when you see the actual moving pictures I can assure you there is edge to edge sharpness. I would never use acrylic. There maybe relative motion blur from movement but the images are very sharp. You can't really judge the sharpness based on degraded screen grabs posted here. I think you will find there is far less distortion using a glass dome as the way an acrylic dome is blown is such a rough process there are always going to be flat spots by the nature of the process. The refractive index stays constant at every point of the glass dome as long as the manufacturer of the housing has calculated his nodal point correctly relative to the curve of the dome and the position to the optical axis.

Ross: didn't notice that Gates was shipping a glass dome now. Wouldn't argue that the glass dome is better, but I'm not aware that these acrylic domes are "blown" AFAIK they are molded, so should be as good as the mold, but I will ask. Again, I haven't done any side by side testing with our glass dome versus the acrylic so can't speak to that in this specific instance. Also, IIRC from my underwater optical physics studies, while a perfect dome and proper alignment go a long way in correcting underwater optical aberrations, there is more going on and usually would require some additional optics for perfect correction. Also if "flat" spots were the problem you would see it in various parts of the picture not just the corners.

And again, I'm wondering why it appears that the corners on your posted screen grabs are much softer (for example on the angelfish shot both bottom corners seem to be soft and in opposite directions so probably not motion blur?). Also seems to be vignetting on the bottom left of the turtleboy4 shot which would suggest something's not aligned? Also makes me wonder if the 11-16 covers the full RED sensor in all modes.

Played a little with the 11-16 stock Canon on the RED with a Birger mount but didn't really test and didn't notice vignetting but also may have been in 4K 2:1.

I'm not knocking Gates, or the 11-16 - just curious as people ask me about this stuff and I don't think anyone has done any hardcore, scientific, side by side testing of the various options - so at least trying to pin down what people are actually doing and then seeing anecdotally.

 

[Ross Isaacs]

11-16 Duclos

11-16 Duclos

Here are a couple more grabs to show you the edge sharpness....I can assure you there is no alignment problems with the Deep Red it is an amazing system.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Here are a couple more grabs to show you the edge sharpness....I can assure you there is no alignment problems with the Deep Red it is an amazing system.

Wasn't suggesting that, I've seen where the PL mount or possibly even the chip was misaligned.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Yea, I guess focusing on fishies while diving might be hard enough as is.

That's another misconception, but one with a happy solution to it. You see, underwater, you don't let your needs/actions dictate your focus, but vice versa. You adjust to the focus range that particular lens gives you under those particular circumstances. I.e.: the old Nikonos 15mm is in sharp focus from about 12 ft/4 mt to infinity at F8, and if you need focus closer to you, then you close down to F11 and you have focus from 6 ft away. So you learn to work within the focus scale of the lenses and position yourself and/or your subjects accordingly. The beauty of this deep focus imaging is that, in reality, as the focal plane moves away from the camera, images start softening up gradually, due to diffraction, loss of light and visibility, etc. So you never need to worry about what's behind your subject, and if you do, just move your subject until you have nothing but blue behind you, easy enough.

This works for most of the work you do underwater. But, when doing fictional work, where you need to follow a protocol similar to topside photography, say, rack focus, blur the background, etc, etc, then you indeed need to implement the same criteria you do on land. And that brings with it the need to have enough lighting as you do on land. Then things do get complicated, just the same as they do on land, and possibly more. But loosing focus on wide angle vistas, or for that matter, on close ups and macro, should not be a problem, just as long as you follow the focus scale on your lens, and the lens is properly calibrated of course

 

[Johnny Friday]

RED underwater frame grabs

RED underwater frame grabs

Here is a link to a Picasa web album where i've taken some frame grabs from RED on a shoot that i'm currently on. Most will likely be a bit soft as we are working in very deep conditions and murky water where the subject is at a substantial distance in less than to be disired lighting conditions (all shot w/natural light).....I can't wait for a carribiean reef project with colorful subject matter and lots of light.

Picasa Web Album: http://picasaweb.google.com/bajaproductions.com/SeaOfCortezShoot2009#

** Shot with these paramaters:
4k, 16:9, shutter at 1/60 to 1/96 @ ISO 320,
Lens: RED 18-50
Housing: Gates deep red
Location: Sea of Cortez
Time: Nov. 2009

 

[Amund Lie]

Fabuloso, Johnny!

You are behind the Gates dome, no?

Are you satisfied with the RED 18-50 for general purpose uw-work? For whales up close like that I would think the Duclos 11-16 would be perfect to show their size, yet getting a bit closer to those hammerheads demands a tighter lens. So what do you recommend to cover both on a shoot like that?

I am very happy with the Duclos, but of course see the need for a zoom like the 18-50, even with the tradeoffs on speed and macro capabilites. Is there any other zoom you can think of that could better the RED in terms of decent quality, range and reasonable price?

 

[Johnny Friday]

Fabuloso, Johnny!

You are behind the Gates dome, no?

Are you satisfied with the RED 18-50 for general purpose uw-work? For whales up close like that I would think the Duclos 11-16 would be perfect to show their size, yet getting a bit closer to those hammerheads demands a tighter lens. So what do you recommend to cover both on a shoot like that?

I am very happy with the Duclos, but of course see the need for a zoom like the 18-50, even with the tradeoffs on speed and macro capabilites. Is there any other zoom you can think of that could better the RED in terms of decent quality, range and reasonable price?

Amund,

....yes, those were all shot using the Gates deep red. BUT, we have just as impressive shots on using my Aquavideo hi-bred.

Very very satisfied with the RED 18-50. At first I did not like the 18-50 when projected on a large screen and with Arri Zeiss 8r and 14 comparisons. BUT, on its own it holds up very very well for tv shoots. The 11-16 is also great and i have that with me now. BUT, i like the 18-50 as my first choice on random unpredictable subjects, then i move off onto lenses to give me another shot such as the 11-16 Duclos. I'll also shoot my nikon 10-17 fisheye to this week to see what results that yields. Tonight in fact I'll change over one of the cameras to the OptiTek nikon mount and we'll shoot topside with that the next week....then move it to one of the u/w housings and shoot the 14-24 and 10-17.

In hindsight I'd have loved to have had the 11-16 for the whales, but it was just a random event that came out of nowhere. For the sharks and deep work....faster lens would be nice like my Arri 14 T2.0, but that was not in the housing at the time. BUT, i know where to find those sharks again.

 

[Amund Lie]

Hehe, makes one wish rotating lens turrets would come back in fashion

 

[Jeff Coatney]

Hey guys-- I need some advice. I'm shooting a personal film (a short) and I need to put my Red in some kind of splashbag or underwater housing for some shots in the surf at the beach. I don't need to submerge the camera, but it will get drenched. What kind of options do I have?

Sorry to hijack the thread-- but if anyone knows it'd be you guys. I'm in Los Angeles and will be shooting in Malibu if that narrows the focus a bit. Feel free to PM me so I don't take up valuable thread space.

 

[Vince Doran]

Forget the splashbag you will need a full camera housing, I get mine custom made here in Aus (never had a Red done YET though) depends on the size of the surf, I have destroyed a camera before from being lip launched and thrown over the falls and smashed onto the reef, nearly drowned, not much fun....you could try Dave Kelly custom housings in Australia PM if you want his details....good luck

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Hey guys-- I need some advice. I'm shooting a personal film (a short) and I need to put my Red in some kind of splashbag or underwater housing for some shots in the surf at the beach. I don't need to submerge the camera, but it will get drenched. What kind of options do I have?

Sorry to hijack the thread-- but if anyone knows it'd be you guys. I'm in Los Angeles and will be shooting in Malibu if that narrows the focus a bit. Feel free to PM me so I don't take up valuable thread space.

Jeff,

just contact an underwater videographer who owns a housing and rent it for the time you need. for example, Ken Corben is right up your alley I think...

 

[Bo Randers]

optical glass

optical glass

Dear follow red Underwater nuts.

I want to change my port in my underwater housing to one with optical glass.

I would like it to be used with Arri 8R, Canon 10-22/Tokina 11-16. Arri S 10,12,14.

Who makes ports that can be used for this. Or any place to get one custom made?

Any ideas??

Cheers

Bo Randers
www.underwaterdop.com

 

[Michael Hastings]

Depends on your current port system. When I made our glass dome frontplate for the R1 I also made some generic plates for use with other cameras, so may be able to help you.

 

[Bo Randers]

just the port

just the port

Hi Michael.

I am using my own housing. It is made with carbonfiber with aluminium front plate. Easy to change.
I can make the frontplate. Just looking for a great port.
Do you have one you would sell that would take the lenses?

Cheers

Bo

 

[Michael Hastings]

just the port or just the dome? Our glass dome "port" is a frontplate since our housing diameter is only 9 inches (8" ID) and the dome is 8 inches there wasn't much point in making a two piece port and plate.

Not really interested in selling just the glass dome right now as it requires some fairly precise machining to get the o-ring right and wouldn't want to give out the drawings.

If you are just looking for the glass, try Aquatica, Subal, Seacam, etc.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

One like this?

http://www.achtel.com/News/CinePort.htm

[edit]...or maybe like the one attached?

 

[Ross Isaacs]

Big Tigers eating whale

Big Tigers eating whale

I shot pack of around 20 big tiger sharks today devouring a dead sperm whale...used the Duclos 11-16mm glass dome on Deep Red. Was extraordinary.....heres a screen grab.
Ross