Underwater Bubble Blowin' Users Group

[Ken Corben]

Hey Mike and Mark,

Let's add this to the 3-D shot list.

 

[Andrew M.]

Hey Mike and Mark,

Let's add this to the 3-D shot list.

Great picture!
So what if shark will turn around and bite you…..just kidding.
Not much activity in this thread here now.
Mean time I am trying to find out, on the lenses Z/F/I solution.
Also CVB is preparing something for NAB but I don’t think they are concern about motor mounting, or on the lenses integrated solution.
See thread:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=23857#post23857

Andrew

 

[Mark Thorpe]

Macro issue again.

Macro issue again.

Can't help but keep going over something mentioned to me a few weeks ago whilst searching around for a Macro option. A guy called Steve Downer who almost specializes in Macro filming using Aaton Super 16mm Cams etc.

He basically told me that he had an adapted Tamron 90mm f2.8 lens for most of his macro filming and that the glass had impressed the people at the BBC NHU so much that they used it on their HD rigs for a very significant ratio of the macro filming requirements in the heralded Planet Earth series. I've just also seen a posting over on the Lens forum mentioning the potential for Tamrons to undergo adaptations to fit a PL mount.

OK so this is not 4k but a seemingly good option for 2k and then down converted to 1080P or i depending on clients needs. Could be an option. Anyway, I have fired of an email to www.lesbosher.co.uk to request a pricing for the conversion. At least this could be something in the lens arsenal for RED One.

Cheers,
Mark.

 

[Ken Corben]

October delivery...

October delivery...

OK,

I will have a custom RED housing by Mike 6 weeks post NAB based on the final lens analyisis by early RED recipients. Unfortunatley my res # is in the 1400+ range or an October delivery guestimate by the Riddler.

I am encountering a challenge by early RED camera recipients to using their RED camera for the first underwater shoot. Bummer! I want to show broadcasters what's in store sooner than later.

Anyone want to volunteer their early reservation # for an underwater shoot?

Mike promises the housing won't leak. Whale sharks in Cabo in May?

 

[Joel Kaye]

Mike promises the housing won't leak. Whale sharks in Cabo in May?

Mine might be too late, but if you don't get the hookup let me know. Or maybe he'll make more than one housing... have a little underwater RED party.

 

[Ken Corben]

Mike will have the housing specifications ironed out rather quick - he's a really sharp guy and gets it. Joelnet, if #141 is delivered in June? are you up for a trip to the Azores?

I have a special film permit to enter the water there to film the sperm whales. I'd like to shoot something to blow the socks off of everyone at the executive level.

Sharky

 

[Joel Kaye]

if #141 is delivered in June? are you up for a trip to the Azores?

I have a special film permit to enter the water there to film the sperm whales. I'd like to shoot something to blow the socks off of everyone at the executive level.

If I could work out the time/money that looks like one helluva trip I'd be interested in. Does your permit specify number of divers etc.?

I've never been there (or even thought about it) but it sure looks like a stunningly pretty place. We'd have to shoot the heck out of it.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Tamron to pl mount

Tamron to pl mount

The thing to remember about these conversions is that they are based on a need to fit PL mount on cameras that have no other choice - and the ease of conversion is a key to keeping the price reasonable.

We have choices - either the $500 red mount or the Birger mount. Once you go to one of those mounts you don't need a converted lens.

Canon has an 85mm F1.8 for about $380 that is almost certainly as good as the Tamron and they have one of their L lenses 85mm F1.2 for super quality and super speed for $1700. You could also look at the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM - about $1370 which is F2.8 and close focuses to 10.8". It is equivalent to 26-56mm so would be very good for macro and could still be used for pretty wide angle stuff on the same dive. It would be decent through a dome, and with a flat port the effective focal length would be 75mm. (I think the close focus distances are to the film plane - if so the actual distance to the subject would be several inches less.)

Another thing about the conversion lenses is that a lot of the effort (and cost) goes to trying to make them more friendly for the movie style abovewater shooting where they want better focus and iris markings and a greater range of turning for focus (i.e instead of say 180 degrees to focus from close to infinity they want it to be 270 degrees so it is easier to pull accurate focus) - stuff that we don't really need.

Also - I don't know why you say that it isn't for 4K - if the Tamron is as good as the Canon then it should be fine. If not, the L series Canon surely would be well up to snuff for the RED - not only are they designed for just as high quality imagery, but you are only using the center portion of the lens so should be even better.

By the same token, if you are looking for the sharpest off the shelf solution the EF 14mm f/2.8L USM $1800 (Close Focus 9.6") is still very wide at about 90 degrees on the RED (114 on 35mmSLR), super sharp and again you are using the center of the lens so even better performance on RED than a 35mm SLR.

I made a chart showing the different sensor sizes and the physical size of some of these lenses in illustrator and posted a .pdf file of it on the website. If you go to http://www.aquavideo.com/pdfs/ and click on the "red camera sensor sizes" file you can see it.

Can't help but keep going over something mentioned to me a few weeks ago whilst searching around for a Macro option. A guy called Steve Downer who almost specializes in Macro filming using Aaton Super 16mm Cams etc.

He basically told me that he had an adapted Tamron 90mm f2.8 lens for most of his macro filming and that the glass had impressed the people at the BBC NHU so much that they used it on their HD rigs for a very significant ratio of the macro filming requirements in the heralded Planet Earth series. I've just also seen a posting over on the Lens forum mentioning the potential for Tamrons to undergo adaptations to fit a PL mount.

OK so this is not 4k but a seemingly good option for 2k and then down converted to 1080P or i depending on clients needs. Could be an option. Anyway, I have fired of an email to www.lesbosher.co.uk to request a pricing for the conversion. At least this could be something in the lens arsenal for RED One.

Cheers,
Mark.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Whale sharks and leaks.

Whale sharks and leaks.

You want it not to leak? I don't remember that in your specs - I think that costs extra.

But seriously - are you talking early May or late May? There are rumors that #8 may already be alive, any confirmation? (Top secret I know, how about 2 smileys for yes, 1 frown for no.)

OK,

Mike promises the housing won't leak. Whale sharks in Cabo in May?

 

[Ken Corben]

Jim said it all...

Jim said it all...

You want it not to leak? I don't remember that in your specs - I think that costs extra.)

Very Funny - Speaking of which let's add a redundant (second) leak alarm to my specs. I like the x-rings you use on your housings - looks clever.

But seriously - are you talking early May or late May? There are rumors that #8 may already be alive, any confirmation? (Top secret I know, how about 2 smileys for yes, 1 frown for no.)

Early or late May all depends on your delivery date of the leak proof version? Early May is better for the animals.

Also, I can neither confirm nor deny anything because I am simply reservation holder #1438:ranting2:

I think it is safe to say that #6, 7 & 8 will not be going underwater anytime soon. I do not know Jim Jannard but I get the impression he is a straight shooter. He posted that RED #1-12 will be delivered sometime after NAB. We know Offhollywood has #6 & 7 and Gibby has #8 - don't know the other lucky few. Joelnet has #141 so that may be the earliest underwater shoot in the field of an interesting subject matter.

I would guess that some one from #1-12 will be sharing results with this community, although not underwater, by early May?

 

[Ken Corben]

Here we go...

Here we go...

Mike,

Here are the RED dimensions per Jim:

The RED ONE body is roughly:

12" long x 6.3" tall x 5.2" wide

This means we're going to an 8" aluminum tube?

With Canon 10-22mm and RED 320GB HDD drive the length can be kept shorter if your batteries velcro to the side of the camera?

You thinking 6" glass port for the Canon?

 

[Mark Thorpe]

Macro option

Macro option

Hey guys,
Just got an email back from Les Bosher in the U.K. Conversion costs for the Tamron 90mm f2.8 to a PL mount costs 250 Pounds Sterling.

I think for me personally I will want to adapt to be able to use this lens for Macro applications.

Mark.

 

[Ken Corben]

Mark thanks for the research on that one - will be a great PL lens for your underwater macro.

I would certainly wait until after NAB at the least before making any lens purchases. We will not know if the RED Canon/Nikon 35mm 'photo mount" is a PL adaptor or an installable front piece? It seems like it might become a pain in the arse to have to change the RED frontplate every time you switch lenses - yikes - you can imagine doing that on the deck!

I think the question is whether Birger is engineering their RED/Canon lens control solution with a PL back or Canon back? The advantage of the Canon back is obvious. Twist on your 10-22mm with Birger control to RED Canon mount with dome port - Back on surface twist on Tamron 90mm (Canon mount) and snap on your flat port with extension tube.

More will be revealed...

 

[Mike the beginner]

Hey guys,
Just got an email back from Les Bosher in the U.K. Conversion costs for the Tamron 90mm f2.8 to a PL mount costs 250 Pounds Sterling.

I think for me personally I will want to adapt to be able to use this lens for Macro applications.

Mark.

Mark could that mean we could convert other still lenses to pl mount for around that price. There are some cracking still zoom lenses out there that would be great for nature/wildlife shooting. How would that go for getting someone to then fit out a zoom controller to the lens as in the birger solution. Avoiding mount changes would be nice. Having say three or four still lenses converted to PL mount sounds fine to me. How much extra to give the lenses some zoom control etc. Would that be possible?

I ask too many questions:blush:

Mike the beginner

 

[Michael Hastings]

RED dimensions.

RED dimensions.

If it were actually a rectangular that size it wouldn't fit in 8" AL (7.9" ID 8.75 OD) but I think the way it is actually shaped it will. Definitely will fit in my special PVC tube at 8.2" ID 9" OD. Batteries and Drive may fit on the sides, will be close, so won't know until hands on.

By the way, the price of the aluminum housing went up by $81. Still planning to go to LA to see the 3D guys. Will stay with my brother in Manhattan Beach. Can you drive to the 3D place?

Mike,

Here are the RED dimensions per Jim:

The RED ONE body is roughly:

12" long x 6.3" tall x 5.2" wide

This means we're going to an 8" aluminum tube?

With Canon 10-22mm and RED 320GB HDD drive the length can be kept shorter if your batteries velcro to the side of the camera?

You thinking 6" glass port for the Canon?

 

[Michael Hastings]

PL conversion of still lenses.

PL conversion of still lenses.

I don't understand why this would be better than just using the Canon (or Tamron in Canon mount) on the Birger mount.

I think the only reason one would convert to PL would be to use on a camera that doesn't readily allow other mounts - i.e. an Arri or Aaton 16mm or 35mm film camera. The beauty of the RED is that it was designed from day one to allow other mounts (which is a lot harder to do on a film camera since you also have to deal with the shutter, mirror, film movement, etc.), be it the Birger mount or the RED Nikon or Canon manual lens mounts - so you can use those lenses without the conversion. That type of PL mount conversion doesn't do anything to make the lens better. (There are some conversions that completely rebuild the lens with a film style body - greater focus travel, proper gear teeth, etc. but they are much more expensive.)

Putting the PL mount on the lenses would make it very hard to implement the lens controllers because you would have to rewire each individual lens with some sort of multipin electronic connector. Again the idea of the Birger mount is it is the same mount as on the Canon camera body - with all of the contacts for the lens electronic pins that already exist on the lenses. If you use the Birger mount you could use any of the Canon EF lenses (the current type-rather than the old manual lenses) with no change - walk into a camera store and buy one, rent one, borrow one, whatever and you get great lenses - many with image stabilization too.

Mark could that mean we could convert other still lenses to pl mount for around that price. There are some cracking still zoom lenses out there that would be great for nature/wildlife shooting. How would that go for getting someone to then fit out a zoom controller to the lens as in the birger solution. Avoiding mount changes would be nice. Having say three or four still lenses converted to PL mount sounds fine to me. How much extra to give the lenses some zoom control etc. Would that be possible?

I ask too many questions:blush:

Mike the beginner

 

[Mike the beginner]

I don't understand why this would be better than just using the Canon (or Tamron in Canon mount) on the Birger mount.

I think the only reason one would convert to PL would be to use on a camera that doesn't readily allow other mounts - i.e. an Arri or Aaton 16mm or 35mm film camera. The beauty of the RED is that it was designed from day one to allow other mounts (which is a lot harder to do on a film camera since you also have to deal with the shutter, mirror, film movement, etc.), be it the Birger mount or the RED Nikon or Canon manual lens mounts - so you can use those lenses without the conversion. That type of PL mount conversion doesn't do anything to make the lens better. (There are some conversions that completely rebuild the lens with a film style body - greater focus travel, proper gear teeth, etc. but they are much more expensive.)

Putting the PL mount on the lenses would make it very hard to implement the
lens controllers because you would have to rewire each individual lens with some sort of multipin electronic connector. Again the idea of the Birger mount is it is the same mount as on the Canon camera body - with all of the contacts for the lens electronic pins that already exist on the lenses. If you use the Birger mount you could use any of the Canon EF lenses (the current type-rather than the old manual lenses) with no change - walk into a camera store and buy one, rent one, borrow one, whatever and you get great lenses - many with image stabilization too.

Thanks for that it is greatly appreciated:biggrin:

I just worry about dust in sensor and other possible problems that could surface with the changing of mounts. Having the same lens would keep things simple. But as you thankfully poimted out (thanks so much) the birger mount has everything in place already. Yep the birger solution is looking better all the time. Hope you or others get a chance to see what Eric at Birger has in store at NAB.

Mike the beginner

 

[Ken Corben]

Price Increase!

Price Increase!

By the way, the price of the aluminum housing went up by $81.

$81 price increase except for those of us that offered a deposit 6 weeks ago, right?

Do you know if Birger is utilizing PL or Canon mount on the back end of their RED lens mount solution or does it matter? Assuming a Canon 10-22 and Tamron 90 lens combination with interchangeable front ports from dome to flat port with extension tube if necessary.

I am thinking white powder coating on the aluminum housing for obvious reasons although I'd prefer RED.

Is your personal housing going to be PVC or Aluminum?

 

[Mark Thorpe]

Forgive the question but......

Forgive the question but......

so what gives with me not getting this whole format thing so far? A PL mount is the physical mount that allows one to connect lens A or lens B, so long as it too has a PL Mount, to RED One, right? So I shouldn't really be making costing questions for adapters to be placed on certain lenses to use with RED One. No I don't want to think about trying to change that baby on the dock or between dives. SO the PL Mount from Birger will do what? How will the Tamron for example fit into it? Does Tamron and Canon, if one also wants to shoot wide with the 10-22, have the same thread if things get threaded into the outer facing element of the PL Mount? Sorry if these seem mundane and arsey questions but it also appears that I have imagined the complete wrong image of this whole format and its configurations to an extent that my sphincter has started involuntary twitches at the monumental step ahead.

It hurts.

Mark.

 

[Joel Kaye]

It hurts.
Mark.

It sounds to me like you're pretty confused about the mounts. I'm not sure if I can help, but here's my best try:

PL Mount - Cine Lenses that have a PL mount. Standard RED mount.

Nikon mount from RED REPLACES PL Mount and allows any Nikon Mount lens to be put on RED. TAMRON lenses can be purchased in several different mount. You can get a Tamron with a Nikon Mount or a Canon mount for instance but NOT a PL MOUNT to my knowledge.

Canon mount from RED REPLACES PL Mount but only works with OLDER MANUAL Canon lenses because their news lenses don't have aperture rings. No way to adjust exposure.

Nikon or Canon mount from BIRGER. I 'think' these replace the RED PL Mount but I'm not sure. BIRGER has special electronics that control aperture and focus. So their Canon mount would allow NEW Canon lenses to be used. THeir Nikon mount would allow the newest Nikon lenses to be used. Also the Birger will allow wired focus control (which would kick butt).

Basically you're probably going to end up with a Birger mount or Nikon from RED mount unless you already have a killer PL lens chosen.

Whew. I HOPE that I didn't misunderstand what you are asking.