Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 Blowin' Users Group

Mark,

Honored to be considered a producer for your pet project. Check your PM for confidential details.

Mike,

Underwater 3-D intro/screening scheduled set check your PM.
 
Hi Ken,
No problems re: PM. I'll get it sent to you some time in the next day or so. Just a brief outline. If you think there's credibility I can send in greater detail.

Just got a +11 achromatic diopter for the Lembeh Straits trip. Planning to do full frontals of the Pygmy Seahorse :tongue: sexy stuff man

Congrats,
Mark.
 
Very Exciting!

Mark, Mike and all the other underwater Red adoptors this is an exciting time for our genre. I look forward to working as a team with all of you other passionate story tellers in this community to advance the underwater filmmaking medium by pushing the envelope in both technology (RED 4K) and storytelling.

Let's make some history!
 
Just sent......

Just sent......

......the idea and CC'd accordingly. Have a gander, let me know the Bobby and we'll be roasty toasty.......speaking in code!

Cheers,
Mark.
 
I don’t think that Canon 10-22 will be good for 4K or even 2K.
I was watching some Discovery programs on HDTV and all new material do not have much of CA and I am bit more sensitive now watching the programs.
In turn when I take my stills done with 10-22 lenses and put on the HDTV screen I see CA and looks ugly.
Maybe they correct CA in post or something but I have seen some corrected stills and it is not 100% correction, more like 50 or 60%

There is new Canon though 16-35 II 2.8L see below links, so far good feedback.
I will buy it soon for still photography, if nothing better will show up for upcoming Ds III 22MP Canon


EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=14907

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=313

Andrew

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: AquaVideoRed206

Andrew:

It seems that chromatic aberration is the big bugaboo on the wide angles - I remember you were kind of down on the Canon EF-S 10-22, but it seems it was one of the first tests you did, and I am wondering if you have done any reevaluation based on what can be reasonable expected out of an extreme wide angle. Have you done any side by side comparisons on the 8R and the 10-22 and maybe one of the other L series or Sigma/Tamron versions of very wide still lenses. Obviously, CA is more difficult to correct on the wide lenses than on the normal to short telephoto lenses - I am trying to get a sense of what is reasonable to expect out of a wide angle at the various price points and/or regardless of price. As you know we want as wide as reasonably possible underwater. The water clarity becomes a limiting factor the farther you are away from the subject so we are looking to figure out where the sweet spots are.

From what I understand CA is fairly easy to correct in software for stills but given the thousands of frames in motion pictures it would be nice if we could avoid all of that post processing - but it may be necessary no matter what if it is an inherent problem on all of the lenses. (I.E. if an 8R only needs two pixel correction at the edges and none at the middle, and a 10-22 needs 4 pixel correction at the edges and one in the middle then we don't actually get a huge benefit spending the extra $24K because both can be significantly improved in software and as far as I can tell once you get into it it won't make much difference in terms of time whether it is a little correction or a lot.) My understanding from here and from other photographic sites is that the software can be set up for specific lenses and you can get essentially perfect correction.

Maybe the answer as to what are we going to do with the wide angle shots is "fix it in post". For us underwater bubble blowers it may be better to shoot that extreme wide 10 mm to shoot through less water than to shoot with a higher quality 12 or 14mm lens. In other words, we can't easily fix the water clarity in post, but we can fix the known chromatic aberrations of the lens. Obviously, the 8mm is even better in terms of wide angle but $25K is a big chunk of change.

PS we may want to copy this over to the underwater thread as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
ARRI/Zeiss Master Prime 65mm T1.3 Test


As my Test of Ultra Prime 8R lenses, this is not a full review but looking closer at important aspects of the lenses in terms of Misterium 12MP resolving power.

I put it on the projector, used the same black background test chart and I couldn’t believe what I have seen. No chromatic aberration at all at 200Lp/mm and 5.6
The estimated light modulation on this 200Lp/mm square about 50%
The test pattern shown below is located near the right edge of the charts S35 frame in section E.

Yes, I got good advice from some forums out there, if you are quality freak then don’t touch anything below 50mm focal length and go for the sweet spot.


And what are we going to do with the wide angle shots?

I will do the Cooke S4 /I 65 test next.

Andrew
 
16-35

16-35

That would be great if the RED was a full frame SLR size sensor but I just don't think 16mm is wide enough for your main wide angle underwater lens. It is equivalent to a 25mm on 35mm SLR - not very wide. I think we should be thinking 14mm at most - 12 would be about equivalent to what we have normally been shooting with in video the last 5 to 10 years and 10 or 11mm is equivalent to where we have been getting to in the past few years - i.e. 4.2mm to 5.5 mm on the wide side of wide angle zooms for broadcast 2/3" cameras.

We need to find the best solution available.

Maybe one of these?
Sigma AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM

Sigma 14mm f2.8 EX Aspherical

Tamron SP AF14MM F/2.8 Aspherical (IF)


Andrew said:
I don’t think that Canon 10-22 will be good for 4K or even 2K.

There is new Canon though 16-35 II 2.8L see below links, so far good feedback.
I will buy it soon for still photography, if nothing better will show up for upcoming Ds III 22MP Canon

EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=148&modelid=14907

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=313

Andrew

Andrew
Click to expand...
 
AquaVideoRed206 said:
We need to find the best solution available.

Maybe one of these?
Sigma AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM

Sigma 14mm f2.8 EX Aspherical

Tamron SP AF14MM F/2.8 Aspherical (IF)
Click to expand...

Sigma 10-20 is this Aspherical design?

Let's see if I can get hold of Sigma 14mm Aspherical.
Do you know how much it cost?

Though 14 mm on S35 that has 28mm neutral is like you said 25mm on 135DSLR format that neutral there is 50mm

12mm would be the best one.
Is there Sigma Aspherical 12mm?

I just posted the pictures of the charts from UP8R test, in post #27 there.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1381&page=3
http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=417&d=1176471905
http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=419&d=1176471905

Check it and let me know if we can live with it.

Nowhere near the 65mm one.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=415&d=1176398283
 
Super wide primes

Super wide primes

Andrew: I think all of these modern superwides are aspherical - it is the only reasonable way to do it. I think ultimately we might want to pool some funds and buy a couple of samples of each and test them all and return what we don't want. I haven't bought much in a few years but I think I am still a Sigma dealer so maybe could get some loaners, but I think we might want to just get a couple of each of what they actually ship to see what we really get in the real world. From what I have read on other sites when we actually choose a lens we will want to purchase multiples and pick the best one. We also need to work with Erik at Birger to verify good operation with their mount.

I'm adding this after the stuff that follows: I have looked at a lot of test reports then got to rockwell's with actual pictures at 12mm - he was testing versus his Nikon 12-24. The Sigma 10-20 did very poorly on the center sharpness so probably a definite no. The Tokina and Tamron compared pretty well on center and edge sharpness - but Nikon was clearly better on edge. The kicker is that in his review of the Canon EF-S 10-22, he clearly states that it is definitely better than his beloved Nikon 12-24. Re: the Canon 10-22 "This is a great lens. It's so great it makes me want to swap over to Canon from Nikon, because it's better than my favorite Nikon 12 - 24 mm lens. It's better because it has less distortion and costs less. I paid over $1,000 for my Nikon; this superior 10 - 22 sells for $700" One of the criticisms of Rockwell is he is Nikon-centric so that is pretty high praise.

I'm getting a headache: So again - we just are going to have to do our own tests. I think we might end up with the EF-S 10-22 for the still lens solution since it will probably immediately interface well with the Birger mount, and nothing else will be much better, and from there it will be some high dollar cine lens for the absolute peak in quality.

Written before but useful:

Shutterbug tested the Sigma, Tokina and Tamron Superwide zooms and basically rated them in that order with the Tokina maybe a little higher overall than the Sigma but the Sigma rated best on the wide side which is what we need most.

http://www.shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/lenses/0206indy/

Here are some likely suspects with prices and features:

Sigma Zoom Super Wide Angle 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM Autofocus Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras • B&H# SI102045DCAF $ 499.00.
Correction for various types of aberration provided by three SLD (Special Low Dispersion) glass element and two aspherical lenses.

--------
Sigma Zoom Super Wide Angle 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS Our Price: $ 689.00
This is designed for full frame so we would be shooting through center - SLR effective focal length of 19.2 which is about where we want to be as a good compromise - about 95 degrees diagonal. KenRockwell gives it a poor review for sharpness so unless it has been updated it's a bummer. On the other hand customers on fredmiranda.com give it excellent reviews including sharpness - so what to believe?

Four Special Low Dispersion (SLD) glass elements are provided for effective compensation of color aberration, which is a common problem with super-wide angle lenses

Two pieces of Glass Mold and one-piece hybrid aspherical lenses offer excellent correction for distortion as well as all types of aberration

Minimum focusing distance of 11" (28 cm) at all focal lengths

---------
Tamron Zoom Super Wide Angle SP 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 Di-II LD Aspherical (IF) Lens for Canon Digital EOS Mfr# AF013C700 • B&H# TA111845CAFOur Price: $ 569.00 Price After Rebate: $ 519.00
Special Glass Optimized for Digital SLR

The lens has one element each of HID (High Index/High Dispersion glass) and LD (Low Dispersion) glass to minimize on-axis and lateral chromatic aberrations that are the greatest hindrance to high optical quality. In addition, the lens uses a high-precision, large clear aperture, glass-molded hybrid aspherical element and two hybrid aspherical elements to thoroughly compensate for spherical and chromatic aberrations and distortion, in order to achieve outstanding optical quality.

Internal Surface Coating to Reduce Ghosting and Flare

Lens features Internal Surface Coatings (i.e., multiple-layer coatings on cemented surfaces of plural elements) and new multiple-layer coating technology on ordinary elements in order to minimize reflections that occur when light enters through the front element and to reduce image degrading effects caused by the imagers themselves.

Enhanced Peripheral Illumination

Peripheral light fall-off is minimized when compared with that of conventional lenses for film cameras so that images are uniformly bright from the center to the periphery.

------

Tokina Zoom Super Wide Angle AF 12-24mm f/4 AT-X 124AF Pro DX Autofocus Lens for Canon Digital Cameras
Mfr# ATX124AFPROC • B&H# TO122440CAF$ 499.95

Key Features

Fast, ultra-wide angle zoom lens with a constant f/4 aperture

Two Aspherical lens elements minimize distortion, especially at the periphery, for superior optical performance

Long focus travel for easy, accurate manual focusing

The rounded diaphragm opening (9 blades) makes out-of-focus elements appear more natural

Chrome plated brass mount plate and all-metal zoom unit

Andrew said:
Sigma 10-20 is this Aspherical design?

Let's see if I can get hold of Sigma 14mm Aspherical.
Do you know how much it cost?

--------


Though 14 mm on S35 that has 28mm neutral is like you said 25mm on 135DSLR format that neutral there is 50mm

12mm would be the best one.
Is there Sigma Aspherical 12mm?

I just posted the pictures of the charts from UP8R test, in post #27 there.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1381&page=3
http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=417&d=1176471905
http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=419&d=1176471905

Check it and let me know if we can live with it.

Nowhere near the 65mm one.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=415&d=1176398283
Click to expand...
 
Sigma 12-24 compared to Nikon 14,, and Canon 14mm.

Sigma 12-24 compared to Nikon 14,, and Canon 14mm.

Another possibility is the Sigma 12-24 ($689) which when it came out won lens of the year awards. Gets an excellent review at 16-9.net with comparison photos to Nikon and Canon 14mm primes.

Again we will be shooting with center 60% of this lens. It basically beat the 14mm primes, the tradeoff is F4.5 vs. F2.8 for the primes. (Sigma also makes a 14mm F2.8 prime.) This is the one Ken Rockwell gives somewhat poor reviews as listed in my previous post.

From the review:
conclusion: Sigma 12-24 compared to Nikon 14,, and Canon 14mm. Buy the Sigma.
http://16-9.net/lens_tests/14mm/14mm_test.html

This test has been rather more exhaustive/exhausting than usual, exploring many (not all) aspects of this group's behaviour, but the bottom line is that the Sigma is uncommonly well behaved for such a wide lens. To recap: it has no geometric distortion at 12mm, 14mm, 18mm or even 20mm. It has no chromatic aberrations. And it's fairly sharp. Oh, and it costs one third the price of the Canon.

To be fair, the Canon deserves to cost a shedload: it is fully 1.75 stops faster than the Sigma, it is compact and beautifully built, it has very well controlled distortion and it is sharp to the corners by f8. And you can't say that about many lenses wider than 24mm. Canon's wide lenses take a lot of flak, but this one is genuinely world class. I'm not saying that it wouldn't benefit from a bit of 'Digital Edition' trickery to keep the CA down, but on the whole it lives up to the expectations raised by the red ring on its rim.

The Nikon, however, is a stinker. As ever, it's always possible this sample isn't representative, but too many other reviewers have found the same problems with distortion for me to doubt these results too profoundly. Avoid.

Actually, given the problems I've had finding a 12-24mm worth keeping, the best advice I can offer is rather: buy LOTS of Sigmas; a good one is a gem, and accordingly worth hunting for.

The 12-24mm F4.5-5.6 EX DG ASPHRICAL HSM ultra-wide zoom lens, with an incredible 122-degree angle of view, wins EISA EUROPEAN LENS OF THE YEAR 2004-2005 award.
 
Quick Canon 10-22 (land) test

Quick Canon 10-22 (land) test

Andrew / AquaVideo,

As a user of Canon 1Ds bodies, I could not test the 10-22 lens.

Tracked down a friend with a D400, popped down to Jessops today (kind enough to let me try one out) and took a few pics at the 10mm end. Apologies for the subject matter, but picked the 'best' view from the Jessops front shop location.

I've put the results at :

(the original files are also there for those who wants to download & look at the files in your own time)

The D400 has a pretty small viewing hole, which combined with the slow lens, made focusing interesting (AKA challenging).
I hope the RED 'focusing solution' will make this simpler for us ;-)

Did take similar sequences (on the D400) with the following :

  • Nikkor 17-35/2.8
  • Sigma 14/3.5
Will post these to the same URL as above, ASAP (ran out of time at the mo).

I know the D400 is not quite a RED equivalent (eg : Nikon D2X), but just wanted to see how the 10-22 stacks up.

I'll leave you to come up with your own conclusions ... :biggrin:
 
One of kens favorite places

One of kens favorite places

Jellyfish Lake in Palau.

Personally I love the place. The walk with the cam over the hill is a bit of a bugger though but well worth it. Went there two days ago and this shot was done from one of our guests. Even though the estimated 16 million Jellyfish don't really sting some people have a reaction to them. Me, sometimes I come back looking like Mick Jagger with really puffed up lips. Not much I can do about that though.

Anyway, enjoy.
Mark.

JFLGates.jpg
 
h2opixels said:
Andrew / AquaVideo,

As a user of Canon 1Ds bodies, I could not test the 10-22 lens.

Tracked down a friend with a D400, popped down to Jessops today (kind enough to let me try one out) and took a few pics at the 10mm end. Apologies for the subject matter, but picked the 'best' view from the Jessops front shop location.

I've put the results at :

(the original files are also there for those who wants to download & look at the files in your own time)

The D400 has a pretty small viewing hole, which combined with the slow lens, made focusing interesting (AKA challenging).
I hope the RED 'focusing solution' will make this simpler for us ;-)

Did take similar sequences (on the D400) with the following :

  • Nikkor 17-35/2.8
  • Sigma 14/3.5
Will post these to the same URL as above, ASAP (ran out of time at the mo).

I know the D400 is not quite a RED equivalent (eg : Nikon D2X), but just wanted to see how the 10-22 stacks up.

I'll leave you to come up with your own conclusions ... :biggrin:
Click to expand...

Dave, thanks! for test.
 
CamDiver said:
Me, sometimes I come back looking like Mick Jagger with really puffed up lips. Not much I can do about that though.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...capitalize on that dude...on those nights hit the Karaoke bars, have 'em rack up a few Stones tunes...and belt 'em out! :biggrin:
 
Nice friggin' shot of jellyfish lake Mark - very cool. I remember humping a Digi Beta in a Pace housing with a back pack loaded with batteries and tapes into the lake. Not as bad as Howard and Bob hauling their IMAX 3-D camera and housing though/

The Red camera and housing will be a simple joy to haul into the lake and around the world :-)

Off to the Apple presentation at the Venetian. Love the products not to keen on the "scientology" presentation style/corporate mantras.
 
Yeah, that shot was taken by none other than.........a rank amateur with a Canon A540 point and shoot 6MP camera in one of those PVC housings! Great result though, after playing around with it in Photoshop.

Gibby, great idea. Plus I can authenticate the look with the Bri'ish accent mate. "I can't get no ....... dah dah dahh ..... sa'isfakshun".

Cheers,
Mark.
 
Hey Ken.

Hey Ken.

Big Hello from a friend of yours,
Hanging here in Palau with Amos who will be able to tell you first hand about the bait ball action. He was in Ulong today to take some shots. Crappy day mind you, black, rainy and low viz. Can't have it all I guess.

Anyway, big hi to you.

Cheers,
Mark.
 
Amos Nachoum - one of the greatest underwater still photographers of all time. His "eye" continually amazes me. Plus he's very funny in the field. You chewing his ear off about your RED camera - Gates housing etc?

Sorry you did not make NAB - you didn't miss much. It's kinda' like when they announced sound and then color for the movies :-)
 
Yep he's getting teased alright. I led him into a place we call the Temple of Doom yesterday. Its a small cave that branches off in the back of the Blue Holes dive site. Basically a small cave system where sea turtles have gone in and been unable to find their way out. The skeletons are a nice photo op. Some people get freaked out in the place but I like the whole atmosphere.

I think I may also be in the process of turning him to the "RED side". He's very interested in the whole product and has been following the progress since the beginning. I think his main desire is to see how a frame grab from 4k RAW is gonna stand up against an image from his DSLR's of choice. If it can equal or better that then we have a convert.

He wants to take a look at a unit asap. Gibby, hope you don't mind but I gave him your company web address so he may be contacting you. This guy's skill is amazing. I've been looking some of his images of Polar Bears hunting and eating seals.........jaw dropping.

Get well soon Ken, hope all is well.
Cheers,
Mark.
 
CamDiver said:
He wants to take a look at a unit asap. Gibby, hope you don't mind but I gave him your company web address so he may be contacting you. This guy's skill is amazing. I've been looking some of his images of Polar Bears hunting and eating seals.........jaw dropping.
Click to expand...

Absolutely...I'd like to talk with him. I've seen his work...great images.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top