PDA

View Full Version : Underwater Bubble Blowin' Users Group



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6

Mark Thorpe
02-09-2007, 01:47 AM
Hey hey, we had a thread, now we got a group area, things are heating up. Still working on the perfect extReme shot with the sharks and my little Titanium Buddy. Will nail it in a few days.

Looking forward to see how this goes for the WetUsers

Cheers,
Mark.

Corrado Silveri
02-09-2007, 03:50 PM
Waiting for your shots...

Be careful!

Jeff Kilgroe
02-09-2007, 06:35 PM
I want to see your Ti R in a shot with a hammerhead. I'm probably asking a bit much though. :D

Mark Thorpe
02-10-2007, 01:07 AM
I wish I could get to see a damned Hammerhead!! They are here at this time of year and sightings have been sporadic. I bumped into a Tiger Shark the other day at 160ft down but he was on a mission and was haulin' ass. No time to line up a shot with R. The waters are cooling down here now as they tend do do so at this time of year. Cold water upwellings bring plankton and loads of predators in its wake. The vizibility suffers a bit but guaranteed I'll be trying to get a nice image for the R shot. Will keep at it. I may just have to stick with a Grey Reef Shark composition but will try holding out for one with a species less common.

Fingers crossed.

Best,
Mark.

Charles Perkins
02-10-2007, 04:14 AM
...

Rob Lohman
02-10-2007, 04:22 AM
I bumped into a Tiger Shark the other day at 160ft down but he was on a mission and was haulin' ass.

Things like that just leave me a bit speechless. What a life! I would probably scared to death, heh. Did went diving in Greece once which I loved. Too bad we don't have such waters here in Holland.

David Nardini
02-10-2007, 05:24 AM
Hey hey, we had a thread, now we got a group area, things are heating up

nice one Mark :)

Cheers

Ken Corben
02-10-2007, 09:41 AM
Since you asked about Deep Gas Mixes:

Here's a link to a deep water Palau expedition I did that will answer many of your deep gas questions:

http://www.bishopmuseum.org/research/treks/palautz97/

I did it shooting digital betacam in a pace housing to 120+ meters everyday while shooting a Discovery Channel Special. Can I just say how stoked I am about using my Red system to push the production envelope underwater. I'm thinking coelacanth in HD...

The mix I used in Palau for our deep dives is known as trimix: HE, O2 and N. The helium is an inert gas used to reduce the percentage of O2 and N to allow for optimal percentages at depth.

I was using a CIS-LUNAR computer controlled rebreather which actually maintains an optimal PPO2 but trimix was the deep water diluent. Our refined techniques today utilize heliox instead of trimix.

And yes, air being a 21/79 mix becomes toxic at 217 ft
Where the never exceed PPO2 1.6 = (depth/33 + 1) x .21

In English, that means the "air" one is breathing at 217 feet is the equivalent of breathing 160% oxygen at the surface. The "toxic" means that the body will react to excessive oxygen known as hyperoxia. It's not hyperoxia that kills you it's typically the seizure underwater that causes the problem. And the PPN2 or nitrogen your breathing at these depths can really make you stoned right Mark?

Maybe that's why you're out so deep everyday on air?

Lucky Bum....

Mark Thorpe
02-10-2007, 11:52 PM
hehehehe, wouldn't change it for the World sharkguy,

Personally I'm 'old school' and prefer to stick with good old air. I don't dive EANx (Oxygen enriched air) as it again reduces the safe depth limit but allows longer bottom times at shallower depths. I may be looking to go through to Closed Circuits in the future as one particular contract (pending) could be very lucrative but is yet to be finalized and will require that. However I want to hold off on the $9k course fees to get me 1 on 1 training from air to Trimix 2 and everything between.

Rob: Anytime I come face to face with a potentially dangerous animal there is a slight twitch around the old crimper but it's all a matter of how you condition yourself to not transmit that emotion when the event happens. I love the feeling of getting up close and personal with the big stuff but personally prefer to film the micro organisms on the reef.

Chas: I don't realy push too far on air. Max here is on a dive site called Siaes Tunnel where I bumped into the Tiger the other day. There's a pinnacle that appears at 160ft where infrequent sightings of bigger critters have been made over the years. I will venture max on air to around 60 - 65m. Job wise I run my own small underwater imaging concession alongside the pioneer dive shop here in Palau. Its a living and allows me to dive everyday if I need to in my search for footage. I pay the bills by diving with people and making DVD's of their dives. A three tank dive (daily stuff) sells for $95 per client, or I get booked to film for groups etc. Its all good fun and recreational diving hardly ever exceeds 40m so pretty safe whilst all the time allowing me the potential to be in the water at the right time.

When RED happens though I may be looking to pass the concession on and concentrate on networking through the film making industry as an available asset for wet environment filming. That and potentially looking for a cheaper base, with diving, to continue with the stock shooting. Palau is great but I will be looking for somewhere with better macro critters as that is where the diversity lies. There are only so many times you can sit there face to face with a shark, a manta or a turtle. The macro world is so diverse and in my opinion takes harder efforts to record it well.

I couldn't imagine going a week without diving !!!!!! ;)

Cheers,
Mark.

Ken Corben
02-11-2007, 11:59 AM
Nice...

Mike Devlin
02-11-2007, 01:51 PM
For 4K I would prefer a PL Cine lens rather than the Nikon. Preferably something fast like the T2 Cooke 15-40 or T2.2 Angenieux 17-80. Or the Red zoom even though it is a stop slower. In any event I would much prefer a PL mount Cine lens. No adapters please! Optics quality is critical at 4K. That would be my vote, although I may well be in the minority.

I know it will be a problem for Gates picking which lens to support. That is why the simplest thing may be to go with the RED Zoom (which is relatively affordable), and then we can get more exotic later. RED camera plus RED zoom plus Gates housing. Makes sense to me.

Mark Thorpe
02-11-2007, 02:35 PM
This is more like it guys:

Housing Considerations (Gates appraisals seeing as that seems the chosen option at the moment):

The main stumbling block is going to be the lens factor. I've chatted with John at Gates and they haven't even got the ball rolling on this yet as they want to get an idea of what the masses (only a handful of housings reserved at this point) are going for on the glass front. Personally I would prefer a lens that can cover many shooting scenarios something like the Cooke 18-100mm T3.0 or the 20-100mm Cooke T3.1 but really would prefer something with just a tad more speed. I also have the Fathoms SWP44 already so for certain shots to be able to access that incredible 117 degree FOV would be huge. For the SWP44 to work seeing as it was designed to be used with the Z1 with no additional filters we basically need to find a prime lens with a 67 degree FOV to match that of the Z1 @ its widest.

I really feel that the Red Zoom at 300mm is going to be way too long a lens for Macro applications.

For the lenses I can see the design following the strategy as I have always mentioned. That each lens will have an extension bracket specifically for that particular lens with the manual operating gears for focus, aperture and telephoto if that is required. Its the only way I can see the lenses working correctly when one has a multiple glass selection.

For the HiRez LCD I would think it would be much cheaper in the long run to look at getting the RED made LCD and then request that Gates construct their housing so that the LCD can be viewed via a viewing window (a la Amphibico Phenom for the Z1 - www.amphibico.com) Lens hoods can be part of the housing accessories if needed.

Any more thoughts?

Mark.

Mike Devlin
02-11-2007, 02:58 PM
Hi Mark,

The RED Zoom is 18-85mm F2.8 (probably about T3.0-T3.2?). The RED 300m prime is not useful for underwater, you are correct. The RED Zoom should be right around 68 degrees AOV at the wide end. I am okay with the Cooke 18-100 if that is the consensus, but I don't think it will be much better than the (much less expensive) RED Zoom.

I already have the Gates EM419 monitor with our XL H1 housing. I too have the SWP44 port and would like to use it. I believe it should work fine with the RED Zoom, but we should check with Gates.

I think the RED Zoom will do what you want Mark.

Mark Thorpe
02-11-2007, 03:23 PM
Hi Mike,
I too have many of the Gates accessories, monitor, tripods, domes etc but will be selling the whole line to make way for RED. It would be nice to have a backup but HDV is just no comparison and no one is gonna see that as a viable back up unit anyway.

I never reserved any of the RED Lens options for this very reason. I would prefer to find a lens with the long end around 100mm for macro. I heard that the BBC used the Tamron 90mm f2.8 on some of their cams (OK its autofocus so a gear would be required) for the Planet Earth series and they loved it.

So still in a quandry for the lens at this point.

Best,
Mark.

Ken Corben
02-11-2007, 03:35 PM
Guys,

Great input.

I love the cooke zooms also, but face it, $45,000 for a lens! Plus they are 9-12 inches long and weigh as much as the red camera or more. For me the hassle of renting Cookes just won't work and certainly not for Gates customers.

Now I agree - I can live with $10K for the Red 18-85 zoom but it is slated for "release late 2007." That means early 2008 for a housing, yikes! I need to be shooting this Summer if the camera release goes as scheduled... or pissing away money on 900 and housing rentals for HDCAM while RED #1438 sits dry - OUCH!

Personally, when framing on the fly underwater with big critters I prefer a top mounted LCD to a rear of housing mount. It's kinda' awkward holding the housing out in front for framing.

I'm curious to see the results of the Nikon 17-35mm zoom with red adapter given the price point and overall capabilities.

The only problem I see with different front ends for the Gates housing is convincing John to do it, the additional o-ring, and finalizing lens selections.

Looks like I'm gonna' have to modify my Eclair ACL housing to fit the RED camera if I want to shoot RED UW this year - glad I hung on to it.

Ken Corben
02-11-2007, 03:49 PM
BTW - Did I mention my ACL housing is RED - hehe...

Ken Corben
02-11-2007, 03:51 PM
Mark,

you are the macro master

Mark Thorpe
02-12-2007, 01:28 AM
Hi Sharky,
http://www.used-filmequipment.com/products/details.php?show=11:6763

Wasn't thinking of spending more than $10k total for glass. I'm not planning to buy anything Cine other than used and if priced right.

The LCD on RED can be made to attach pretty much anywhere and in any position. The LCD is not located on the rear. I also prefer top mounted for framing on the fly. I imagine most of my stuff will be set to specific shot lists though and I'm not thinking about swimming along a reef in the hope of finding interesting stuff to film with RED.

Regarding lens options for Gates I too believe that we will be seeing the housing revolving around a single lens but there will obviously be shooters with deeper pockets than others who will also opt for custom built lens brackets for specific glass, not that I am in that group unfortunately.

As you may also be aware I am stepping up from HDV and am taking the time before getting my hands on RED #954 to learn as much as possible. That also means the fact that I have never worked on Cine lens theory whatsoever in the past. Slowly getting there so be patient if I make what seems to be any crazy opinions etc. I'm always of the mind that the lens needs to be as wide as possible and offer a good macro ability. With photography I have many friends who use a variety of 105mm lenses with diopters for the really small stuff. I am only imagining that this technique would be possible with certain long lenses with greater tele characteristics than 35mm? Can anyone expand on / correct that thinking.

As much as I'd like to think I can 'touch" well on the macro scene there are some fantastic shooters out there who amaze me with their stuff. Bob Cranston, Howard Hall and Peter Scoones for example. The way I see it these true masters have to move over some day. I for one will be waiting in the wings, along with many others, in the hope of filling in the spaces.

Cheers,
Mark.

Ken Corben
02-12-2007, 04:17 PM
Here's a configuration I am looking at for an underwater red system that will fit in my ACL housing while waiting for the Gates system.

I located the battery and drive underslung may change depending how I can squeeze it into the housing.

Nikon 17-35mm with Century HD .8 converter. I haven't done the math on the dome (6"?) but thanks to Ralph Oshiro here's the 4K lens math:

"...using the 1.62x lens cropping factor, if you're acquiring in 4K:"

17mm x 1.62 = 27.54mm
35mm x 1.62 = 56.70mm

Or 22mm with .8 converter which is equivalent to the 14mm with cropping factor allowing full zoom thru capability?

Obviously not to scale

Ken Corben
02-12-2007, 07:44 PM
I am going to try a color chart on my fin for reference in post for 4K Raw output.

Mark Thorpe
02-13-2007, 12:25 AM
Sharkguy,
I've had a few of the Ikelite meters crap out on me here, not mine but belonging to camera equipped divers etc. IMHO not very rugged and prone to failure.

Do you have an outlet for the Sekonics? I done a search a while back but could only find the odd one for private sale etc.

Learning Question: Seeing as the ASA value is accessible to the shooter wouldn't that then be set in accordance with the either the ambient / available light or to determine the 'look' of a required sequence?

What is the securing mechanism of your ACL housings port(s)? Shame its not bayonet to allow the SWP44 eh? I also have the Century HD .8 converter as I was also thinking of potentially using that. My mind may be on the right path after all.

I'll be interested to hear how your initial tests go.

Cheers,
Mark.

P.S I'm also looking to strap, clip, weld or bugger together some kind of color chart to one of my fins. I do have a WB slate on an articulated arm for my Z1 so I may take that idea and add a color slate to the reverse side. WB in 2k and less and Color Reference to boot.

Ken Corben
02-13-2007, 10:09 AM
I still have my original sekonic L-164 with more than two decades of abuse still works. Picked up a newer one recently on ebay for $100.

I think it has been discontinued again so ebay and other UW photo communities might have some offerings.

Meter history/specs:
http://www.hydroflex.com/site/helphints/marine.html

Important tip: You'll need this nifty adapter to use batteries available today to maintain the "constant voltage" of the old lead batteries.

http://www.criscam.com/old/mr9.htm

Ken Corben
02-13-2007, 10:31 AM
I won't get around to testing lenses until I can use a red camera. However, I did ask Evin Grant if he would be posting lens test results on the 17-35mm. It's on his to do list which is great.

I am very curious to see if the Century HD .8 will work on this lens with the 72-77mm ring adapter etc.

ASA
I read on another thread that ASA 320 with at least a 5 stop lattitude was the "imagined" red one 4k red raw setting. Sounds about right. Didn't specify frame rate but that's easy to adjust on the meter.

It's all coming back from my film days...WFO at night, F8-11 in green water and F11-16 in blue water.

BTW - the ACL housing is from the era of Flipper and the pioneers of UW filmmaking in those days, i.e, built like a nuclear submarine. No bayonet mount on dome port but it is a very nice piece of glass.

Mark Thorpe
02-13-2007, 05:37 PM
ASA
I read on another thread that ASA 320 with at least a 5 stop lattitude was the "imagined" red one 4k red raw setting. Sounds about right. Didn't specify frame rate but that's easy to adjust on the meter.

Hey Sharkguy,
Wow, you speak mandarin too?? Great asset. OK, I'm Wiki'ing cinematography at the moment. Long words ............ my head hurts!! :eek:

Best,
Mark.
P.S WFO has something to do with Wide Open I take it. haha. Love to see the ACL housing, take a ride on it. I saw the attached image and was half expecting to see the Beatles peering out of one of its portholes.....lovely looking tub.

Wahhhhh, just realised what a dumbass I'd been with the posting regarding ASA values. Its amazing what one picks up in the other forums ........

Ken Corben
02-14-2007, 03:35 PM
Found this US Navy report on evaluation of Kinoptic 9.8mm lens underwater thru a dome port.

Abstract : In the process of evaluating the overall performance of the wide-angle camera system used aboard the USNS Mizar (TAGOR-11) for underwater search, it was decided to investigate the imaging characteristics of the Kinoptic 9.8-mm lens used with the camera in order to isolate its limitations from those of the other components of the system. In use the lens is mounted behind a watertight, hemispherical glass dome. The water/glass, glass/air interfaces formed by the dome act as a negative lens, forming a virtual curved image of the (relatively) flat ocean bottom. This image in turn serves as the object for the camera lens. Tests were made of the len's ability to image both flat and curved objects in air, extending across its field of view. The tests show that the resolving power of the lens falls off greatly at the edge of the field of view for curved objects, so much so that only the general form of the resolution target can be distinguished. For both flat and curved objects, radial resolution is nearly twice as good as tangential resolution. (Author)

Original Link:
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0722335

Ken Corben
02-15-2007, 06:49 PM
OK,

I am not an optical/lens expert and have been spoiled by the Gates and Pace solutions for underwater to date. That said, there seems to be 2 solutions for Red underwater if you plan to shoot 4K Red Raw professionally.

Wait for the Gates system or design a custom system. I am choosing the latter only because I want to be shooting 4K Red Raw underwater this year.

My math and presumptions are solely based on what I've learned from this forum and are subject to error based on information/data provided.

No doubt one needs to use a corrected dome port on any lens they choose underwater since a flat port adds yet another focal length multiplication factor of x 1.339.

The Nikon 17-35 aligned with the dome port correctly yields the following FOV presuming the multiplication factors are correct for the mysterium sensor (The Mysterium’s capture area is 24.4 x 13.7mm 16:9 aspect ratio at 4.5K?):

35mm is 1.6 x 17 = 27mm or a FOV= 77 degrees
S35mm is 1.5 x 17 = 26mm or a FOV=80 degrees

Basically for us underwater guys this means the equivalent of the Nikkor 20mm at the 17mm end of the Nikon zoom...not bad for a $1200 zoom solution (see diagram 1).

Need wider? I will so I have explored the options. Firstly, there is already a shortage of 35mm primes and with the release of Red, well you know - I see Red users already driving up the price of the Nikon 17-35 on ebay. That said...

To obtain wide angle performance similar to the Nikonos 15mm lens in a prime configuration the choices are:

The $2k solution Nikon 14mm x 1.6 = 22.4mm or a FOV= 88 degrees
The $10K solution 10mm x 1.6 = 16mm or a FOV= 107 degrees
(see diagram for comparative FOV)

Then finally there is the question of using the Gates $5k SWP ports some of us already own. If the FOV of a 1/3" chip camera (Z1) behind this glass is 67mm at the wide end then:

1/3" = 67mm/7.5 = 9mm or a 10mm 35mm prime lens. (7.5 is the lens multiplier for 1/3" chip to 35mm equivalent). Again a $10K solution for a used 10mm prime.

The Red Zoom is an 18-85 so the wide end field of view underwater is 18 x 1.6 = 27mm or a FOV = 77 degrees.

Exhale...

Ken Corben
02-17-2007, 08:40 PM
Here's a reliable source for sekonic spot meters...get 'em while they're hot.

http://stores.ebay.com/Underwater-Photography-Cameras_Underwater-Light-Meters_W0QQcolZ2QQdirZQ2d1QQfsubZ680566QQftidZ2QQt Zkm

or email queries direct:

joeswaney@earthling.net

Ken Corben
02-17-2007, 09:11 PM
It nows seems apparent to me that "acceptable/applicable" professional underwater 4K will only be adequately accomplished with a Zeiss (or equivalent) 10mm ultra wide prime (excepting macro of course). In fact the focal length multiplying factor of red raw with a 35mm lens (x 1.5) benefits the macro shooter.

Obviously I will test the Nikkon 14mm vs the Zeiss 10mm to evaluate the differences but intuition tells me the 4K difference will be obvious. (Test procedure will be standard color chart/slates in daylight at f/11 4K red raw files scanned to 15 perf 70mm positives via redcode workflow to simulate underwater).

Currently, if one is a shooter for hire, the majority of clients will be happy with a 1080i output since the final cable tv broadcast pipeline compression is 5:1 (such as Discovery and hence the inability of S16 to hold up under this compression).

The realities of 4K stock footage vs "shooter for hire" are different animals in terms of the investment in glass and housing design.

A zeiss 10mm is $10K plus custom housing (>$20K) plus red raids, batteries, viewfinders etc = >$50K all in. This compared to a F900 UW system at >$150K is still an awesome breakthrough.

I like camdiver's original idea of interchangeable front ends. This would accommodate a Zeiss 10mm (4K red raw), a Nikon 17-35mm @2K (sensor windowing) and a macro set up.

The zeiss 10mm is in use underwater on Arri 435's. I'd say it's an 8" dome from the photo? Obviously barrrel and pincushion are correctable if hydroflex uses it.

Mark Thorpe
02-18-2007, 12:27 AM
Way to go Sharkguy,
Great posts. Very good info here. Either way we look at it we are on the verge of parting with a lot of cash ......... :waaa:. Whether one shots for stock or as a shooter for hire we are still looking at custom front ends for the glass we will want to use. each shooter will be different. I imagine John at Gates will look at building the housing around the 18/85mm to get the product out there asap. From there on any additional lens options would have to have their own dedicated extension tube. I can see these getting expensive.

I for one will be selling pretty much everything I have equipment wise at the moment to make way for RED. That means a couple of camera systems and lots of basic accessories for the DV and HDV underwater shooter. I really like the Fathoms SWP44 but I am not sure if we're gonna be able to find a way to make it work. At least I'll be able to get a chunk of change for that to go toward whatever I see as my wide option. For the Macro option I'm continuing to look around.

Hey also thanks for the link to the folks with the Sekonic. Mailed them this morning with an order.

Cheers,
Mark.

David Nardini
02-18-2007, 02:20 PM
Hello Mark / Sharky,

Concur with many of your ideas. Personally I've limited my search to 14mm (just picked up a reasonable Sigma 14mm/3.5 for £135 from eBay); performance seems good on a Canon 1D which is all I can test it on, marginally bigger chip size than the RED). Flare control is not ideal, but given the shape of the front element, not surprising (but can be controlled).

I agree that it would be nice to have Zeiss glass, but by the time you use domes, I do wonder how much of that great glass you are going to enjoy underwater (how close do they focus ? to avoid another +ve diopter lens being in the way).
If you can get your hands on a nice Hasseblad SWC housing with Ivanoff port (glass), then you may be doing some justice to the Zeiss, but these used to be matched to the 38mm Biogons (on the SWC). I really wish I still had mine to play / test with :bye2:

Mark, I still plan to try the SWP44 in front of a 17-35/2.8 Nikkor ... will report back as soon I can (assuming the folk in Bristol still have a unit for me to test against). Does the SWP44 perform fine on land ?

Achieving a good 90 degrees FOV (for 4K capture) with good edge definition with the RED is going to be challenging. IMHO there are few lenses which have achieved this to date underwater : the Nikonos 15mm and the SWC in a Hassy housing. Most other solutions have always been a compromise, especially dome optics. Sadly, the Nik 15mm will not be wide enough if one could be made to fit the RED (it's not really a 15mm, more like a 20mm).

Anybody out there who can make / polish up an Ivanoff port for us :biggrin:

Mark Thorpe
02-18-2007, 02:42 PM
Hey David,
Good to hear from you. If you can get a trip to Palau I have the Gates and everything here if you need to play around with stuff. Plus get some kick ass diving in at the same time.

Are the people at BBC NHU also using the Gates? I knew that Doug Allen had one in Tonga with the SWP44 for the Humpback Whales but didn't know if it was his or from the gear room. He's away 'up North' most of the time eh?

All the best,
Mark.

Michael Hastings
02-18-2007, 07:54 PM
Can we use the Nikon 12-24mm f/4 on the red? The DX size 16x24mm sensor is almost exactly the same as red: 24.4mm x 13.7mm (Super35mm). Does anyone know if the mount is the same so if RED makes us a Nikon mount soon the DX size lenses will work?

Mark Thorpe
02-18-2007, 08:20 PM
Can we use the Nikon 12-24mm f/4 on the red? The DX size 16x24mm sensor is almost exactly the same as red: 24.4mm x 13.7mm (Super35mm). Does anyone know if the mount is the same so if RED makes us a Nikon mount soon the DX size lenses will work?

Hi AquaVideoRed206,
Evin is doing a great job of appraising the Nikon glass on the Lens threads. I'd suggest you submit your lens query to him or even request that this glass be placed in line for due course evaluation.

Regards,
Mark.

Ken Corben
02-18-2007, 08:44 PM
Nikon 12-24mm:


Don't use it (12-24mm) on a film camera or a 24 x 36mm CCD digital camera like the old Kodak 14n. This lens cannot fill the entire frame of a S35mm camera and will give a semicircular image in the middle of the frame of film or big CCD.

Michael Hastings
02-18-2007, 08:59 PM
Can you revisit that answer? - The whole point is the mysterium is the same size - it is not the 24x36 of a film 35 SLR or the full frame CCD of a EOS-1Ds.

I will try to get over to the lens forums, but I put it here since my interest is underwater and settling for a 17mm or more is unacceptable even a 15mm on the mysterium is borderline.

I thought maybe someone here had already seen the DX lenses discussed.



Nikon 12-24mm:


Don't use it (12-24mm) on a film camera or a 24 x 36mm CCD digital camera like the old Kodak 14n. This lens cannot fill the entire frame of a S35mm camera and will give a semicircular image in the middle of the frame of film or big CCD.

Mark Thorpe
02-18-2007, 09:32 PM
Hi,
Sorry but I am not aware of a thread which deals with this lens. Then again I am not looking through all threads at this point.

Cheers,
Mark.

Ken Corben
02-18-2007, 09:35 PM
Wouldn't it be awesome if a +/- $1K Nikon lens was the underwater answer?

DIN S35mm is 24.05mm wide, ANSI S35mm is 24.9mm wide. Always go with the horizontal only. The vertical changes with aspect ratio.

Hence the Mysterium sensor (24.4 x 13.7mm) fits neatly between the two. Now I am guessing that if one calculates DIN S35mm of 24.05mm for the red sensor, unused portion sensor dedicated to "auto black?". then the questions of DSLR lens coverage comes into play.

Caveat: I am not the "expert" just indulging in development ideas with other avid underwater shooters using google and this forum as my knowledge base. That said:

The premise I have been researching under for my ideas is S35mm coverage for the mysterium sensor at 4K Red RAW. If this is the caveat, then technically the 12-24mm Nikon is a 18-36mm, no? Not bad for less than a grand, HOWEVER, there is a caution for S35 coverage from this lens expert.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1224.htm

Tech savvy link:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dx.htm

KEEP THE IDEAS COMING....

Visual Depiction of coverage areas:

Michael Hastings
02-18-2007, 09:40 PM
Just remembered that the 12-24 has no iris ring - a bit of a problem with the RED. Anybody know if you can dig into these lenses to hot wire the iris motor? - we've done it many times with video lenses and it sure would make external control easier than with gears.


Can you revisit that answer? - The whole point is the mysterium is the same size - it is not the 24x36 of a film 35 SLR or the full frame CCD of a EOS-1Ds.

I will try to get over to the lens forums, but I put it here since my interest is underwater and settling for a 17mm or more is unacceptable even a 15mm on the mysterium is borderline.

I thought maybe someone here had already seen the DX lenses discussed.

Ken Corben
02-18-2007, 09:57 PM
The Tokina 12-24mm is suitable if the mysterium coverage is there..

"*Will not give full coverage on 35mm SLR cameras.?"

I'd say that for >$1000 if the optics are sharp edge to edge then in 4K Red RAW it might be simple to have a "pan and scan" preset for the output files in post???

http://www.thkphoto.com/products/tokina/afl-00b.html

TOKINA 12-24mm

Mount availability: Canon and Nikon Digital Only*

Recommended Sensor size: APS-C Sized (23.7 X15.6mm)
CCD or CMOS sensor
(w/1.5-1.6x magnification factor)

Zoom Range: 12-24mm

Maximum Aperture: F/4

Minimum Aperture: F/22

Optical Construction: 13 Elements / 11Groups

Coatings: Multi-layer Coatings

Zooming System: Rotary-type

Minimum Focus Distance: 11.8 in. (30cm)

Macro Ratio: 1:8

Number of Diaphragm Blades:
9

Filter Size: 77mm

Dimensions: 3.3 in. (84mm) X 3.5 in. (89.5mm)

Weight: 20.1 oz. (570g)

Included Accessories: BH-777 Dedicated Lens Hood

Optional Accessories: Fitted Case

Suggested List Price: $899.00

Michael Hastings
02-18-2007, 10:04 PM
The 12mm is 12mm - that is if you compare it to the red zoom at 18-85 it is a whole lot wider. That conversion factor you are using - 12-24 equaling 18-36 is only when you are trying to compare the angle view to what you would get with a full frame (24x36) 35mm SLR.

Rockwell explains it this way: "A more complex way to imagine this change in field of view is to play a game and imagine that your lens changed focal length. Typically this factor is 1.5, meaning a 50mm lens used on a typical digital SLR will give the same angle of view as a 75mm lens on a film camera. This is all pretend; the focal length doesn't really change. It's just a way for people familiar with lenses on 35mm cameras to imagine the fields of view on DSLRs", or in our case the RED camera.

Rockwell further talks about the 12-24 working fine on full frame SLRs down to about 16mm - in other words there is no optical problem - it just has to cover the sensor and the circle gets smaller as you go wider. Since the mysterium is so close I doubt if there is any loss (one would think that they designed in a little overshoot), but if there is it would probably only require limiting the zoom to 13mm or so as at this focal lenght 1mm is almost 10%. (My other random speculation is that the Mysterium is so close to the DX size that many of these cameras use, that it may have been initially developed with that in mind before the RED team got onto it - or was the Mysterium really developed specifically for RED?)

Unfortunately, we are still back to the iris question to make it the underwater answer. (Anybody have one of the cheaper DX lenses we could tear apart - guess I could look on ebay.)


Wouldn't it be awesome if a +/- $1K Nikon lens was the underwater answer?

The premise I have been researching under for my ideas is S35mm coverage for the mysterium sensor at 4K Red RAW. If this is the caveat, then technically the 12-24mm Nikon is a 18-36mm, no? Not bad for less than a grand, HOWEVER, there is a caution for S35 coverage from this lens expert.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/1224.htm

Tech savvy link:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/dx.htm

KEEP THE IDEAS COMING....

Visual Depiction of coverage areas:

chuck colburn
02-18-2007, 10:23 PM
Get someone to put an Olympus mount on your Red and you can use some of the finest still camera optics ever made. Including this little ditty.

http://www.adorama.com/IOM714.html

Michael Hastings
02-19-2007, 09:43 AM
The Olympus e sensor is 18 x 13.5 mm so would probably have the vignetting issue - also it seems to only have internal iris control like the other digital specific lenses.




Get someone to put an Olympus mount on your Red and you can use some of the finest still camera optics ever made. Including this little ditty.

http://www.adorama.com/IOM714.html

chuck colburn
02-19-2007, 09:59 AM
The Olympus e sensor is 18 x 13.5 mm so would probably have the vignetting issue - also it seems to only have internal iris control like the other digital specific lenses.

Ahh I see. Should have read up on that 4/3 sensor size!

Michael Hastings
02-19-2007, 10:40 AM
There has been some info in the lens section about a mount for the EF lenses. I posted this over there, but think it has relevance here too.

I have a strong interest in this sort of thing for use in making the underwater housing for the RED. We have a compact board with an onboard micro controller that we use to do focus, iris, etc. through LAN C that I believe could be easily reprogrammed to send whatever RS232 commands the birger adapter needs. It seems to me that with what they have done already and if RED will give us the information on the front plate of the camera and flange distances to the sensor it wouldn't be that hard to do the physical part either. It seems like the RED team should be seriously considering the utility of the EF setup as it seems like the Iris is easier to do on the canon EF than the Nikon system. Also, it seems like the EF-S 10-22 would be a possibility since the sensor size is almost identical and it would provide the phenomenal wide angle zoom that I think a lot of us are looking for - but particular us underwater guys. We have a CNC machining center, so if RED is overloaded, with a little help we could do it here.


The Guys at Birger Engineering are looking into this. They have an intelligent adapter which allows control of EF mount lenses, but it currently requires a computer to be connected to it for communication with the lens. http://www.birger.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=ef232_home

There has been an amount of discussion about repurposing this technology to make a RedOne mount for EF lenses which would have a separate hardware controller, could be wired or wireless. This would allow for focus as well as iris control and it could be configured to act as a very effective follow focus. The mechanical action of the focus ring on the lens could be remapped to allow for much more effective manual control than could be executed with the focus ring. Parts of the focus range could be expanded, preset focus points could be assigned to buttons... lots of potentiol.

This is all exciting stuff, but still vapourware at the moment, however Birger have suggested that there may be an announcement coming up to NAB. I have attached a quote from a post by Erik at Birger which comes from the "Spike Black... First Prototype photos" sticky on the Red One forum.

Martin


Just remembered that the 12-24 has no iris ring - a bit of a problem with the RED. Anybody know if you can dig into these lenses to hot wire the iris motor? - we've done it many times with video lenses and it sure would make external control easier than with gears.

David Nardini
02-19-2007, 10:58 AM
... the EF-S 10-22 would be a possibility since the sensor size is almost identical and it would provide the phenomenal wide angle zoom that I think a lot of us are looking for - but particular us underwater guys. We have a CNC machining center, so if RED is overloaded, with a little help we could do it here. ...

Yep AquaVideoRed206 ... great lens if somebody could give us an aperture control mechanism :w00t:

The Birger Engineering folk appear to be working on an EOS adapter, so fingers crossed, we'll end up with a wider pick list than just the older style (aperture control) lenses.
Have not seen this lens on their 'list', but I assume the protocol is the same for all EOS lenses ?

Ken Corben
02-19-2007, 11:44 AM
AquaVideoRed206...

EOS adapter with LANC control for the Canon 10-22mm sounds like the slickest lens solution I have heard. Would you "CNC" a canon front plate for the red camera? That would be far more elegant than other work arounds.

Are you planning on RED PVC and plastic or glass dome for the housing design?

Sharky

PS- If you would share your expertise on the pros and cons of plastic vs glass domes for a hypothetical Canon 10-22mm underwater that would be much appreciated. "Explain it to me as if I were a six year old," from Denzel Washington in Philidelphia.

David Nardini
02-19-2007, 01:09 PM
... If you would share your expertise on the pros and cons of plastic vs glass domes for a hypothetical Canon 10-22mm underwater ...

Not quite an explanation for 6 year olds, but here is a starting point :

http://scubageek.com/articles/wwwdome.html

Plastic is great in that you can polish off small scratches (eg: t-cut) ... glass you are pretty much stuck with it, but underwater you will hard pressed to see their effects. For split level shots, however, you may see the defects clearly (stopped down & close focus) ... depends of the shot.

An excellent (old but still good) reference book is 'The Manual of Underwater Photography' by T. Glover, G.E. Hardwood and J.N. Lythgoe (Academic Press). Not sure if it's in publication ... worth picking up an old copy.

The thing I don't like about domes is the curved depth of field they inherently exhibit. I much prefer Ivanoff ports (they also work better in air & for split levels). I'm trying to find somebody (?) who can machine / polish one up :help:

I've got the formula somewhere ... once I find it (Ivanoff port + corrective diopter pair) I'll post it ...

chuck colburn
02-19-2007, 01:22 PM
David,

There are lots of sites for surplus optics (windows, lenses etc.) out there.
Some with anti-relective coatings already applied. These could save you a bundle over having one generated and coated. Do you have an idea of how large of one you would need. I like to poke around at these sites and might stumble onto one that would serve your porpise. hehe

Chuck

David Nardini
02-19-2007, 02:34 PM
... Do you have an idea of how large of one you would need ...

Below is a picture summarising the Ivanoff-Rebikoff correction lens and some formulas ... hope I've not made a typo !
Essentially it's a reversed Galilean telescope in which the front (plano) concave lens is used for the watertight window. The lens system will be afocal if :
fd = fn + d
where :
fd = focal length of the positive lens
fn = focal length of the negative lens
d = separation between the lenses

In summary, the main benefits of this port system (as can be found on the Hassy SWC housing) :

it is afocal and can be used in conjunction with a conventional camera lens of any focal length as long as it does not vignette the corners
the focal length and field of view of the camera lens are the same in water as in air
pincushion distortion, chromatic aberration and other aberrations of a plane (flat) port are corrected
depth of field is increased by about a factor of 2 over a plane port with the same camera lens and aperture


Alignment of the optical axis of camera lens and correcting lenses (+ve and -ve) is critical. Ideally, they should all be mounted on one rigid mechanical unit (any flexing of the u/w housing under pressure will not affect quality; this is clearly only an issue for deeper work).

That's it :biggrin: anybody out there that can machine up / polish a perpex port for me :help: (I can sort out the +ve diopter). The underwater community could really do with a supplier of these ports ... !

EDIT : oh ... forgot to say, I don't know how zoom lenses will stack up in this scenario, but will find try and find out ...

Mark Thorpe
02-20-2007, 01:20 AM
This thread is really coming into its own. A lot of information from a lot of talented people. Let's keep it going. I too am wondering what we will all end up with. David I'm hoping it will become possible to use the SWP44 but I think we are all starting to look at avenues that point to other glass options. I really do like this lens. The following is a shot from about 1 ft from the subject. Great coverage I reckon.

Cheers,
Mark

http://www.4koceanstock.com/Images/turtle.jpg

Ken Corben
02-20-2007, 09:26 AM
David,

Thanks for the brilliant post on perpex ports and other ports- very intriguing!

Here's a lead - your looking for a guy named Warren Williams. This bloke worked on the original HASSY housings. I believe that Dr. Mustard (a friend of the Beatles?) has William's contact info and he is in your neck of the woods. Ring him and let us know what you discover.

Dr Alexander T. Mustard
Email: alex@amustard.com
Phone: +44 (0) 7876 523 110

Sharky

BTW - is this what the port looks like?

David Nardini
02-20-2007, 09:30 AM
... David I'm hoping it will become possible to use the SWP44 but I think we are all starting to look at avenues that point to other glass options. I really do like this lens ...

Hi Mark,

As you own one of these, I'D HANG ON TO IT ! The reconditioned unit I was going to try and test tomorrow has been sold ... arghhh :angry03:
Brand new they are not a cheap item, BUT if they perform as good as suggested, then I'd be thinking of holding onto to it until you can test it on the RED (the only REAL way you will get confirmation).

I've asked a few folk here in UK to see if I can test against their unit ...

In the mean time (as you can tell) I'm also trying to source an Ivanoff port or somebody who can make me one ... given that the Nikkor 17-35/2.8 does not change in size during focusing / zooming I'm hoping that it should work ok.
Aim is for a port that covers up to 90 FOV (gut feel tells me that beyond this the port will become quite large).

There are plenty of dome ports suppliers, glass or perspex ... this is the simple and 3rd choice.

Another alternative is to jump on a plane and do a week in Palau ... now THAT would be too nice :w00t: (& pigs will fly too !)

The hunt continues ... (having said all this, if you really want to shift your SWP44 => let me know !).

David Nardini
02-20-2007, 09:41 AM
David,

Thanks for the brilliant post on perpex ports and other ports- very intriguing!

Here's a lead - your looking for a guy named Warren Williams. This bloke worked on the original HASSY housings. I believe that Dr. Mustard (a friend of the Beatles?) has William's contact info and he is in your neck of the woods. Ring him and let us know what you discover.

Dr Alexander T. Mustard
Email: alex@amustard.com
Phone: +44 (0) 7876 523 110

Sharky

BTW - is this what the port looks like?

Hi Sharky,

I know Warren Williams VERY well ... he does all my custom dome ports, but NOT Ivanoffs !

I know of Alex Mustard, but never met him or spoken with him (he's only a few miles up the road in Southampton as it happens).
Yes, that lovely piece of glass on the front of that Hassy SC housing is a matched Ivanoff (positive diopter is screwed to the front of the lens) for the Biogon 38mm. Used to have one of these ... they are a LOVELY piece of (glass) optics ... I now wished I had not parted with it ...

I've emailed Peter Scoones to try and dig deeper on the Ivanoff story ... hopefully he can shed some light on how best to get one machined up. He's a busy man, but I'm hoping to speak with him soon.

I'm researching as fast as I can and will report back.

EDIT 1 : the housing you show is a 500CM unit ... just noticed the optical viewfinder at the back of the housing; the SWC has no reflex and the housing is a range-finder affair (not SLR essentially).

EDIT 2 : just spoken with Alex Mustard and I'll do some tests in March using his Hassy Ivanoff port and will report back. I'm planning on testing against the Nikkor 17-35/2.8 for the moment ;-) & they'll be land tests for the moment.

Ken Corben
02-20-2007, 03:11 PM
David cheers mate...that's pushing the envelope with the Hassy to Nikon 17-35mm test - I love it.

Thank You for sharing

Andrew M.
02-20-2007, 03:20 PM
Cam Diver what will be your pick for housing ?
Did you make up your mind yet?
Andrew

Ken Corben
02-20-2007, 06:03 PM
What frame rate are you guys thinking for underwater?

4K or 2K?

Mark Thorpe
02-21-2007, 01:46 AM
Cam Diver what will be your pick for housing ?
Did you make up your mind yet?
Andrew

Gates, seems to be the best way to go IMHO for my applications and working style. I am not pushing anyone to follow suit but I have worked with, still do, these housings and seeing as I work completely manual they suit me down to the ground. Bullet proof, proven track record and basically an all round solid deal. Great customer care and real people at the end of the telephone line. I had a problem with an external monitor here in Palau recently and they phoned me up to arrange replacements etc. How often you see that happening elsewhere???

As their logo says "Don't take a chance, take a Gates".

Cheers,
Mark.

Mark Thorpe
02-21-2007, 02:02 AM
Hey Guys,
Looks like "Evin the Great" has come up with the long awaited report for the Nikkor 17/35mm. Looks like we have the work horse lens sussed. Now for SWA and a super macro option.

Cheers,
Mark.

Andrew M.
02-21-2007, 04:53 AM
As their logo says "Don't take a chance, take a Gates".
Mark.

Mark, thanks!
http://www.gateshousings.com/XLH1.html
Looks great.

I am monitoring this thread for some time with high interest, though, if I take RED underwater it will be purely private event, nothing to do with professional activity. Hey!, all my business started like this:-)

Any idea what budget, one have to have, to take RED underwater and have comfortable good equipment?
Excluding camera and lens, just underwater specific.
I love cave diving so good light is a must I think?
Andrew

Michael Hastings
02-21-2007, 07:18 AM
Just a couple of comments:

1) As far as the 17/35 being the workhorse - I would question that, as 17 isn't really very wide when used on the RED - at the wide side it is roughly equivalent to 25-26mm on a 35mm still SLR, and covers about 80 degrees diagonal - not very wide for underwater work where the lens we are normally using for Broadcast cameras like the Panasonic VARICAM, Sony F900, etc. would be the Fujinon 4.5-59mm. It is about 107.5 degrees diagonal. For the RED we need to get down to about 10 or 11 mm to get the same wide angle (which is why I have been asking about using the Canon 10-22 EF-S lens or Nikon 12-24 on the RED).

107.5mm is really wide, but even with prosumer cameras like the Sony Z1 - most of the housing/lens combos can get you to somewhere between 90 and 100 degrees - much wider than the 80 degrees of the 17mm.

2) Regarding the Ivanoff corrector, first of all nice posts. We have companies in China that will grind either glass domes or Ivanoff type lenses at relatively modest cost if we order 20-25 units (the end user cost would probably be in the $2500 - $6000 range depending on the size). The question is whether it is really necessary, particularly right off the bat. If you look at virtually all of the housings for Broadcast cameras, 35mm cine cameras, IMAX, etc. - by any of the manufacturers, AquaVideo (my company), Hydroflex, Pace, etc. - they all use domes and most are acrylic domes. The reason is that they work very well both optically and from a practical engineering standpoint. We make our own domes for most of the consumer and prosumer HDV camera housings, but we often use Aquatica ports on our broadcast housings because they are well made, have off the shelf flat ports for macro available as well as extension rings that allow some flexibility for different lenses, and aren't overly expensive.

For the RED I would initially look at using the Aquatica ports or possibly even Ikelite ports which would allow greater flexibility with different lenses (we can't use the Ikelite with the broadcast lenses as they are physically too small, but many of the lenses we are talking about using for the RED would work fine with the Ikelite size port. (The Ikelite interchangeable ports are only 84mm inside diameter at the base so we can't use the broadcast lenses which are typically 95mm or more at the front.)

I also mentioned in an earlier post the possibility of actually making the front of the housing the front plate of the RED and incorporating a Nikonos mount which would allow use of the Nikonos 15 and also other Nikons with an adapter.

Final thought regarding wide converters and the Wide ports like the SWP44 mentioned in some other posts. Keep in mind that the reason they are using wide converters and ports like the SWP44 - which is essentially just a wide converter combined with an underwater optic - on the prosumer housings for the FX1/Z1 and others is that those cameras don't have interchangeable lenses, so your only option is a wide converter. Generally speaking, if there is any way to get your main lens as wide as you want it it is a better way to go. So I think we want to concentrate on getting the Canon or Nikon SLR lenses to work, or just bite the bullet and get one of those Zeiss, Cooke, Kinoptic, etc. real lenses in the 9 to 12mm range.



Hey Guys,
Looks like "Evin the Great" has come up with the long awaited report for the Nikkor 17/35mm. Looks like we have the work horse lens sussed. Now for SWA and a super macro option.

Cheers,
Mark.

Andrew M.
02-21-2007, 08:05 AM
BTW - Did I mention my ACL housing is RED - hehe...

Where did you find ACL housing of red color? any links?

BTW interesting document:
http://www.cinemarine.net/Adobe/equipmentsUS.pdf

Andrew

Mark Thorpe
02-21-2007, 02:02 PM
Hi AquaVideoRed206: I guess it is all down to the individual project at hand. In many productions the percentage of time spent at 107.5 degrees as opposed to say 60 or 80 would of course be anyone's guess. For the establishing shots of course we all wanna get as wide as possible. If we are fortunate enough to be making a doco on Whalesharks, Blue Whales, Mantas or anything equally massive then yes we will need that almost fisheye AOV. For the most part in most documentaries I motion that the viewer is presented with portraiture and close ups to explain the story of the subject, the behavior, the rituals etc. All sequences where details would be lost if set too wide. This of course is all based on personal experience. It is for this reasoning that I will potentially be looking to use the 17/35mm pretty much as the most frequent of glass on my RED.

Cheers,
Mark.

Ken Corben
02-21-2007, 05:46 PM
Thanks aquavideo206 for your great posts.

I wonder if the Nikon 14mm lens might be a good solution for a "splash cam" system for water work less than 10m like surfing etc. I think the coverage would be similar to the Nikonos 15mm on the red one, no?

Ken Corben
02-21-2007, 05:48 PM
Where did you find ACL housing of red color? any links?

Sorry no links - I bought the ACL housing from a private party way back when before hi-8 even. Shot segments for Silk Stalkings and MOW's as well as Nat History w/a schneider 10mm. Very well made in the 60's by the "Flipper" guy whose name i don't recall (Jordan Klein maybe?) http://www.jordanklein.com/

It's kinda' red/orange...

I might put it up for sale if I decide to go another route...

Cool post on the cinemarine BTW

Ken Corben
02-21-2007, 06:09 PM
Any idea what budget, one have to have, to take RED underwater and have comfortable good equipment?
Excluding camera and lens, just underwater specific.
I love cave diving so good light is a must I think?
Andrew

It would say the range is $2k to $7K for the housing dependent on depth rating. If we can convince aquavideo206 to make an interchangeable port sytem housing from aluminum tubing I think everyone would be stoked.

A port for Nikon lenses: 55mm macro, 17-35mm zoom and the 14mm?

Maybe we can get aquavideo approved by Jarred as a red vendor then set up a red one underwater housing refundable deposit for an Aquavideo "liquidred housing system so the design can move forward?

camdiver has good recommendations on lighting systems

Mark Thorpe
02-22-2007, 02:23 AM
I paid $3,890 for the basic block Gates housing for the Z1U as a potential gauge. With so few, to begin with, potential clients I feel that we will not be looking at a unit for less than $4,000. Thats to start with, then the individual shooter, depending on his or her pocket depth will then have to deck out with external monitors, lenses above and beyond those which the housing manufacturer builds their initial offering. Then of course, and we hear it everywhere so no reason for that to be different underwater, lighting.

We can compromise on most things, housings which may not be the Rolls Royce of options but work to our demands, lenses which may not be the latest and greatest Cooke primes, but work to our demands. However for lighting, sorry Jack but we should not be looking to compromise in this department in any way. In fact I'd suggest saving on lenses, housings, monitors etc if that means you could buy very nice underwater lighting options.

And those options are (amongst others):
Halcyon Apollo: A 200w HMI Diver Portable unit but no control over power setting. I've not been able to reach my contact there for the past few days as these units are brand new this year so I was wanting to send out a bit more info but as yet unavailable:
Price expected to be around: $6000 per unit


The Heliumizer option. 200w HMI Diver Portable unit which can be dialled down to extend burn time. Hand made by a Finnish cave diver these lights have had good reviews. I have not used them but they seem to be a very nice contender:
http://personal.inet.fi/yritys/innovanet/video_light.htm
Price: 4,600 Euro (can't find the damned Euro symbol on this keyboard).

The Nuytco "NewtLite" - From the company that bought us the deep diving 'NewtSuit'. This unit is again a 200w HMI option with power reduction feature.
http://nuytco.com/products/lights.shtml
Price: $5800 per unit.

And last but not least:
Pacific Visions Inc. PV200 modular designed 200W Diver Portable HMI light. Hand made by one of the great late Jacques Yves Cousteau's cinematographers Louis Prezelin.
http://www.pacificvisionsinc.com/pv200%20light/pv200light.html
Price: $7,500 is the normal cost of these units but the company is having a sale for a limited time so units can currently be had for the bargain price of $6,450 per unit.

As you can see, lighting underwater is not cheap but it should not be shrugged in anyway. In fact with water absorbing light at a much greater rate than air we need more light to achieve similar results on land, I'm talking about color rendition etc.

Apart from those above which I listed you could also opt for surface supplied lighting but then you are really limited to your range which will be dictated by the length of your lighting cables etc. I have a 1200w (two times 600w) surface supplied system with 300ft of line and whilst it is a very nice option to have it is very cumbersome, takes a lot of maintaining, as anything underwater related does, and is just horrendous to work with unless the shot is nailed down with regards to model choreography and or lighting angles etc. This option is not cheap: $15,000 but worth its weight in gold.

Hope this helps,
Mark.

David Nardini
02-22-2007, 05:55 AM
... So I think we want to concentrate on getting the Canon or Nikon SLR lenses to work ...

Hello AquaVideo,

Agreed.

Also agree that we should start off with off-the-shelf dome ports (Aquatica, Ikelite, Subal, Seacam ... whatever makes sense in terms of quality/cost) for enabling manual Nikkor wide angles (or others subject to an iris control mechanism). After all, the vast majority of these commercially available domes are made for these very lenses.

My requirement is not for a bullet proof aluminum housing (al al Gates) since most of my work is shallow / water interface stuff, so the kind of unit you produce would be fine in my case.

My current view would be to have the front bulkhead of the housing be the 'central focus point' for the housing, clearly hosting the port, plus the mount keeping the RED in register with the optics. The rest of the housing is a shell hosting the other relevant controls. (BTW : I hope the core controls will be on the body and not driven by some menu / sub-menu set of dialogs ...)

I'm sure that a carefully set up dome port system will perform adequately. My Ivanoff quest is purely to see IF I/we can squeeze better performance out of the lense(s). I base this on my experience from my SWC days, the output of which was outstanding.
In comparison, for domes, I cannot always say the story has been this consistent.

The Nikonos 15mm has always been my reference point, outstanding underwater optic (on a RED this will be the equivalent of approx 30mm on a 35mm-SLR). As it is just for u/w use (will not focus in air) it's of limited value to me personally.

As for the SWP44, I'm not suggesting it's 'the' answer. But, if you currently own one, it would be the first things I'd test on the RED equipped with a suitable lens. I've not heard a single bad report about the SWP44.
Sure, it is aimed at setups with integrated lenses, but if it does the business ... keep it and get some nice clean/sharp 4k output !

As for macro, there is no real technical challenge for the optics (other than focusing, which by all accounts, there is a novel solution built in the RED).

Roll on April 2007 (ish) ... can't wait to get some RED body measurements

Andrew M.
02-22-2007, 07:26 AM
Mark and Sharky, thanks for all the info, I really appreciate.
I would like to go to Mexico where I like the caves the most.
Dos Ojos
Nahoch Na Chich
http://www.dir-mexico.com/photo.htm
http://www.clownfish.nu/photo.asp?SlideShow=2&SlideNr=1
Look at all these pictures, non of them in high-res but still, once you have seen it only once you will know what I am talking about.

I am thinking to get RED down there, and capture the beauty of this crystal clear waters.
Visibility in the caves is more then 300 meters!
And most of all I like how Sunrays are playing in crystal clear waters of the large football field size caves
entering the cave from far above.
I am hooked on it and returning there again and again.
Maybe once I capture it in 4K I will cut my trips there by half:-)
Looks like I will need some help down there.......

Andrew

Ken Corben
02-22-2007, 04:07 PM
Andrew,

I've got three rebreathers and a "Liquidred" camera system in development. Count me in for the Mexico cenotes expedition. We will need Mark's incredible lighting gear - maybe he'll join us to help gaff and shoot second camera.

Mark Thorpe
02-23-2007, 02:35 AM
Hey David,
I will only be getting rid of the SWP44 IF we can't find a way to adapt it for use with RED. Its a sweet piece of glass as you well know. I'm just amazed at the performance of it. Mind you I'm diving with it almost everyday so now three months after its acquisition I need to send it back to get it re-coated. Such is life.

sharkguy, love to be in on that project. I do have some other things in the REDline so will have to put other stuff on hold for a while. Mind you with cavern exploration I guess the 7P's come into play.

Prior Planning and Preparation Prevent a Piss Poor Performance.

It would take a while to plan everything out so would love to get in on something like that. Not CCR trained though! Open Circuit?

Cheers,
Mark.

Andrew M.
02-23-2007, 05:10 AM
Mark, Sharky, great news!
Will be pleasure to get you both on this expedition.
With two REDs rolling at the same time we can get some great walk-through scene shots (don't know the exact name of this shot is?).
Sharky did you use the rebreather in Cave/Cavern environment before?

Andrew

Michael Hastings
02-23-2007, 08:16 AM
Ken:

It was nice talking to you the other day. I will try to expand on what we talked about re: pricing and getting setup with Jarred as vendor. I am scrambling to get housings for the HVR-V1 for a customer in Jordan and an HVX200 housing with Firestore for a customer picking it up early next week so I will be pretty tied up for the next few days - after that I can flesh out the details. But your ballpark numbers are about right. I figured about $2000-2500 for a PVC normal aquavideo-style housing with flat acrylic ports - depending on what we have to do re: gears or friction style controls for focus and iris. As I told you, we don't do a lot with gears as the video cameras generally have servo controllable focus, iris, and zoom, but some of the port options have that built in and there is also a guy here in Florida that does a lot of that stuff and may help me out with it. Figure about$3000 - $4000 for the same type with interchangeable ports. Either would be rated at least for 175 ft. or more. (If someone really wants just a surf type we could use 1/2" plates to lighten it up but would reduce the rating to 60ft. or so.)

I figured about $5000 - 6000 for the aluminum cylindrical style that we discussed with interchangeable Aquatica ports and the end plates would be thicker. The aluminum would be same basic style (we can talk about handle options as the aluminum would have a little more flexibility) This would be rated to at least 300ft but beyond that I have to see what the rating for the ports are and what other options for ports would be. The housing itself would be capable of 400 - 500 feet and I have made a few for the crazies here in florida that do those type dives. We just used the thick end plates with no dome - they give up some optical quality but it usually isn't as critical on the subjects at those depths. Domes or Ivanoffs for that depth might get really expensive. (PS re: crazies - no insult intended, it's just MHCO - that's my humble clinical opinion that you 300 ft+ guys are crazy! LOL)

To see an example of the normal AquaVideo PVC type housing you can look at this pdf file:
http://www.aquavideo.com/pdfs/SonyHDRFX7HVRV1Housing.pdf

As we discussed, the PVC turn around time would be just a few weeks - our normal turnaround for other housings for new cameras. We were figuring 4-6 weeks for the aluminum. Beyond that, with a few weeks more lead time we can make a shaped aluminum housing - more like the Varicam housing you can see here:

http://www.aquavideo.com/pdfs/Varicam%20housing.pdf

but the cost would go up by 50% or more.




It would say the range is $2k to $7K for the housing dependent on depth rating. If we can convince aquavideo206 to make an interchangeable port sytem housing from aluminum tubing I think everyone would be stoked.

A port for Nikon lenses: 55mm macro, 17-35mm zoom and the 14mm?

Maybe we can get aquavideo approved by Jarred as a red vendor then set up a red one underwater housing refundable deposit for an Aquavideo "liquidred housing system so the design can move forward?

camdiver has good recommendations on lighting systems

Michael Hastings
02-23-2007, 08:38 AM
Re: the Nikonos 15. As a historical note many people may not be aware that the 15 is really a 20mm Nikon with a dome port - when it was introduced they called it a 15 because it gave the same angle of view as a 15 did with a flat port - about all that was available in those early days. I believe they just extended the distance from the film plane to compensate for the very tight dome. (A dome port refocuses the image when it touches water - infinity is 3 times the radius of the dome in front of the dome (everything else is progressively closer on a logarithmic scale) e.g. infinity is 9 inches in front of the dome for a 6" diameter dome port, 12 inches for an 8" diameter dome. You can achieve that close focus by shimming the lens or by using a close up lens - i.e. a +3 or +4 diopter for that 6" dome. Modern prosumer video cameras like the Sony Z1 or V1 don't have to use a diopter because they can coordinate the movement of the Zoom and focus elements to achieve macro close focus even part way through the zoom range.

I agree that if you have an SWP44 you should keep it as it will probably work pretty well, however if you don't have it already you are probably better off spending that money on a used 10 or 12mm prime pl mount lens. (I'm a Century dealer so when I get a free moment I will ask them whatever happened to the old 9.5mm kinoptic - I don't see anything listed on their current literature) Again if one of the Digital type Canon EF-S 10-22 or Nikon DX 12-24 can be made to work it would be a wonderful inexpensive option.


Hello AquaVideo,

Agreed.

Also agree that we should start off with off-the-shelf dome ports (Aquatica, Ikelite, Subal, Seacam ... whatever makes sense in terms of quality/cost) for enabling manual Nikkor wide angles (or others subject to an iris control mechanism). After all, the vast majority of these commercially available domes are made for these very lenses.

In comparison, for domes, I cannot always say the story has been this consistent.

The Nikonos 15mm has always been my reference point, outstanding underwater optic (on a RED this will be the equivalent of approx 30mm on a 35mm-SLR). As it is just for u/w use (will not focus in air) it's of limited value to me personally.

As for the SWP44, I'm not suggesting it's 'the' answer. But, if you currently own one, it would be the first things I'd test on the RED equipped with a suitable lens. I've not heard a single bad report about the SWP44.
Sure, it is aimed at setups with integrated lenses, but if it does the business ... keep it and get some nice clean/sharp 4k output !

As for macro, there is no real technical challenge for the optics (other than focusing, which by all accounts, there is a novel solution built in the RED).

Roll on April 2007 (ish) ... can't wait to get some RED body measurements

Ken Corben
02-23-2007, 09:45 AM
Mark, Sharky, great news!
Will be pleasure to get you both on this expedition.
With two REDs rolling at the same time we can get some great walk-through scene shots (don't know the exact name of this shot is?).
Sharky did you use the rebreather in Cave/Cavern environment before?

Andrew

Shot name: underwater glidecam shot - $100 fins instead of $$$$rigs/harnesses-hehe.

I was not one of the amazing wakulla (sp?) cis-lunar cave guys - but yes, I have shot in caves and caverns with rebreathers.
I was doing open water diving with the beta versions of the cis-lunar in '97 (Photo is from Alcyon mount, Cocos Island 30+meters) before taking delivery of Cis-Lunar MK V ser#3. This rig is still my primary choice for all underwater work.

Ken Corben
02-23-2007, 09:55 AM
Wow Mike,

Nice job on the varicam housing! That is an elegant and simple design with what looks like a good optical solution for the Fujinon.

It will be interesting to see if RED will require all presets, for frame rate etc, before closing the housing or ????

Andrew M.
02-23-2007, 10:09 AM
Sharky, just asking since it is bit tight in few places down there to get to some caves.
But as Mark said as per 7P rule we will go once or twice in there to check all including clearances and we take some high res still pictures first, only then, next day, we go down there with the cams.

Andrew

Mark Thorpe
02-23-2007, 01:49 PM
I have done Cavern exploration in an unchartered system in the Canary Islands. I was commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund (Spain Office) for the gig and was paid by the Finnish National TV station, YLE. They were after the images of an endemic blind crab. The whole mapping and line laying was carried out by nationally recognized (Spanish) cave diver / instructor / world record holder, Uri Belen. That said I am not cavern certified but am more than comfortable anywhere with a reg in my mouth.

Cheers,
Mark.

Andrew M.
02-23-2007, 04:09 PM
Mark, I read all about you and Sharky already, very impressive!
I use OceanReef full face masks for its excellent underwater communication capability.
http://www.oceanreefgroup.com/pdf/oceanreef2007catalogfinal.pdf
and this is good as well:
http://www.oceanicworldwide.com/img/p_computers_datamask1.jpg

Configuration has only two hoses, one main supply hose the second hose for common, BCE and spare reg. All the rest are transmitters, or in mask readouts.
Let you get through tight places down there and less things to get caught on.
OceanReef has even camera receiver so you can record live underwater communication.

Andrew

Ken Corben
02-23-2007, 05:49 PM
(PS re: crazies - no insult intended, it's just MHCO - that's my humble clinical opinion that you 300 ft+ guys are crazy! LOL)

None taken, it is very dangerous. I do it in pursuit of great stories and images. The real scary thing about 300+ ft dives it that it feels just like being in 30 ft unless of course something goes wrong - there is no direct ascent option. I have had only one malfunction at depth in ten years with the cis-lunar system at depth - o-ring failure on sensor pod. Switched to open circuit bail out and 90 minutes of deco later back on deck safely.

The cool thing about rebreathers in caves is no percolation from exhaust. Pristine visibility is maintained. Well worth the cost for the image results.

Ken Corben
02-23-2007, 06:07 PM
ATTN all RED U/W shooters:

I think it would be a blast to get a big animal expedition together for an underwater RED shootout. I realize we are all spread out around the globe and delivery dates are soft for the camera.

That said I think the following options are doable and with 4-6 of us we can get our own boat/accommodations in most cases with operators I have worked with before:

October '07 right whales in Patagonia

November '07 Orcas in Norway

Feb '08 Humpbacks at Silverbanks

March '08 Africa Sharks - tigers/whites/raggies and whale sharks

April '08 Spotted dolphins Bahama Banks

Would be a real blast,

Sharky

Mark Thorpe
02-23-2007, 11:10 PM
That would be a fantastic ideal but imagine being on a boat with 6 RED's all vying for that great shot. I bet we'll end up eating each others fin tips!! I do have a shark related idea for the future to relatively unchartered and pristine waters where, so far as I know, only a few photographers have been, upwards of eight differing types of sharks to be found on one expedition trip. Planning is a bitch due to the isolated location but very doable. Will mean searching for a budget but that is one of the files pending in my projects can at the moment.

Much as I'd love to get to meet all the other RED divers I think that will only happen as and when projects overlap. I'm sure it'll be a blast when we do get meet up though nonetheless.

Cheers,
Mark.

Andrew M.
02-24-2007, 07:22 AM
I agree with Mark, if RED U/W users will try to do any useful work at the same time, it may look like RED shark feeding frenzy.
Don’t you guys take vacations ever?
I know whole your lives are one big vacations, isn’t it?
Expedition that is less opportunistic instead and more socially interesting will do quite well I think?
Andrew

Michael Hastings
02-24-2007, 11:21 AM
I haven't had a chance to dig through all the threads, does anybody know which version of red photos would be the base red?
redone_11.jpg
redone_13.jpg

I am trying to figure out what the best mounting would be and need to know what the base unit will have.

Also looking at redon_20.jpg does anyone know if the sensor is farther back than the plate with the 8 screws (just in front of the red button or know there) or is it forward of that. I am trying to figure out if the different mounts - Nikon, Canon, etc. will just be he round portion that sticks out or that whole plate.

Andrew M.
02-24-2007, 01:06 PM
your redone_xx.jpg don't link anywhere?

Mark Thorpe
02-24-2007, 02:04 PM
AquaVideo,
I suggest you contact Jarred or Jim to see if you can get approval to be a RED authorized third party retail / merchandise product provider. Maybe that way you will get privvy information regarding weights measures etc regarding RED. Do lots of specualting now to possibly have it all wasted later on is a risky move.

Cheers,
Mark.

Erik Widding
02-24-2007, 03:25 PM
It seems to me that with what they have done already and if RED will give us the information on the front plate of the camera and flange distances to the sensor it wouldn't be that hard to do the physical part either. It seems like the RED team should be seriously considering the utility of the EF setup as it seems like the Iris is easier to do on the canon EF than the Nikon system. Also, it seems like the EF-S 10-22 would be a possibility since the sensor size is almost identical and it would provide the phenomenal wide angle zoom that I think a lot of us are looking for - but particular us underwater guys. We have a CNC machining center, so if RED is overloaded, with a little help we could do it here.

We will have a mechanical adapter and cable combination as a standard product for RED. We are just waiting for drawings from RED for the front plate of the camera, and the electrical spec of the port that we are going to suck power from. Supposed to be here shortly. We will provide a cable to get power from the camera and a mechanical adapter to the camera. Data for our unit will have to come (at least initially) from a source other than the camera. The scenario that you describe will be quite straightforward.

The lens you want to use works with our unit already. The compatibility list on our website is limited to those lenses that we have had in our hands here at our office. We currently have no known incompatibilities with the newest library. Problem with the known compatible list is that we just haven't had a need to test many lenses. Not on the list right now means it either hasn't been used, or it has never had any issues with customers, so we don't have a need to test it. I suppose we should simply add lenses that are reported as compatible by customers, and footnote that limitation. We just need to get our customers to email when we haven't done something wrong. Where would the fun be in that?

Andrew M.
02-24-2007, 03:50 PM
Erik, can you make a small box with two knobs on it for adjusting exposure and focus, so we don’t have to connect laptop to your adapter?
I am afraid that RED will be busy for some time and Canon EF mount is not on the top of the list.

Michael Hastings
02-26-2007, 04:55 AM
http://red.com/images/photo_zoom/redone_11.jpg
http://red.com/images/photo_zoom/redone_13.jpg


your redone_xx.jpg don't link anywhere?

Andrew M.
02-26-2007, 06:15 AM
For sure not the one with EVF. EVF is an option.
As far as I understand there will be LCD included.

Also the thing that has big letters RED on it, is high speed adapter that is an option.

Mark Thorpe
02-27-2007, 02:31 PM
Yoo Hooo, diving today and happened on a bait ball of big eyes scad. These poor fish were getting hounded by an invading force of predators. Always makes for good video.

Here's a shot as a grey reef shark launches his attack. The shark is the vertical object in the middle of the exploding fish school.

Gotta love it.
(This is a cropped image)

http://www.4koceanstock.com/Images/Ulong-Baitball too.jpg

Ken Corben
02-27-2007, 05:44 PM
NICE!

Mark, can't wait to see money shots like that in HD shot with your RED UW system at NAB '08 RED booth?

Mark Thorpe
02-27-2007, 06:30 PM
Yep,
This bait ball is predictable for about 9 months of the year, day in day out. You should see the size of it when it starts out around April, HUGE. The action is better at this time of year though as the fish are bigger, and a lot fewer, so they stay very compacted as they try to avoid predation. This time of year I start just going to this channel everyday and hanging with the baitball just to enlarge the archives of this kinda behavior.

Strange that there is an unquenchable thirst for stock of shark behavior outside of the generic "Here's a shark poodling along the reef drop off........." shots. Not that I'm complaining of course.

Cheers,
Mark.

Andrew M.
02-28-2007, 04:19 AM
Mark, did you see shark going actually horizontal on the fish school?
I guess bottom and bit back direction is a blind spot for most fishes and most divers as well.
Second best, from the top back will create shadow.
But why not to come completely from behind?

Mark Thorpe
02-28-2007, 03:52 PM
Hey Andrew,
The school of fish were between me and the shark so I couldn't see his angle of approach. I am pretty sure that he did actually come directly from behind and then angled upward with his maw open to feed. The only reason I can see for this approach is the fact that the physical geography of the channel doesn't allow for the classic attack flightpath, from below.

When fish are schooling like this though and if the predator has enough speed then they can hit from whichever angle suits them and still feed. I think the typical attack path of sharks from below is only really applied when the shark has to rely on 100% stealth in their hunt.

I'm sure you've seen the shark documentaries which outline the reason for shark coloration being the way it is? That is to allow the shark to be almost invisible to prey items as it passes underneath (darker skins on the upper side) and able to blend into the surface when viewed from below (lighter bellies) although that won't stop them becoming silhouettes to beings such as humans with 20/20 vision, most fish have poor eyesight. Tiger sharks have stripes to blend in with their favored hunting grounds, shallow turtle grass lagoons as they hunt for stingrays and turtles etc.

Biology lesson over.

All I know is that being in this environment as sharks are feeding gives me a HUGE BUZZ !!

Cheers,
Mark.

Andrew M.
03-05-2007, 08:55 AM
Mark, thanks for explanation. I watch all I can about sharks, very intriguing.

On another subject, do you have any idea how we will control focus and exposure in the underwater enclosure?
Does it have any servo motors or we have to get it, orl enclosure will just provide the power for servos?
I am really concern how to control the zoom as well. Yes zoom, this will be my dream come true.
You have some experience with in cave filming, do you think the zoom lenses (18-100) will be very useful instead of prime?

Mark Thorpe
03-05-2007, 02:30 PM
Hi Andrew,
I think Ken (Sharkguy) has more cave experience than I so it may be prudent to ask him with regards to the cave scenarios. For zooming etc I would expect that the design of the housing, in the lens vicinity, will have dials on which will then have a cog marrying up to a focus, or exposure ring that fits over the lens to allow that manipulation. Pretty much the same as I have on my existing housing that allows for manual focus of the Z1. If I could upload an image without that option continually failing then I would post an image to clarify my point.

Jarred, everytime I try to post an Internet ready .jpg image 15kb in size I get asked to log in again, go through the upload procedure, the upload fails and I get asked to log in again then get a "No image was selected" message. Something not right, needs some ........ :construction:

Cheers,
Mark.
P.S Almost got the thread to 100 posts, way to go guys.

Ken Corben
03-05-2007, 03:56 PM
Zoom Lens - I am not the expert on this by far, I am a continual student. As of today, IMHO, there is no zoom wide enough for underwater 4K S35mm coverage. The Red 18-85mm will be a sweet piece of glass but the FOV at the wide end is the equivalent of a 28mm lens. In a cave that is a fairly narrow field of view. That said-

There are some nice super 16mm PL mount lens that will work well for windowed 2K but they are pricey, e.g., the older Canon 8-64 or the super sweet 10x6.6mm (which incidently costs as much as the camera and is physically larger too).

http://www.zgcint.com/zgc.nsf/c7a682995edb4e7585256b4d001ebd57/17b2d3161688decf85256ffc006305dd?OpenDocument


I would say rent or buy The Cave on DVD underwater shot by the master Wes Skiles...very fun film for us frogdudes.

http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/thecave/index.html

No zoom used in this feature underwater - all ultra-wide primes I would presume due to the low light levels utilized by Wes (I could be wrong?).

Lens Control is simple mechanical gearing like in these photos depicting a S16 9.5-57 zoom lens with three seperate mechanical rings for zoom/iris/focus...OLD SCHOOL!

There might be some fancy electronic controls offered down the road for underwater housings and Canon/Nikon EF lenses but I'd avoid these solutions personally. It's a real pisser to solder circuit boards in 5 meter seas...BTDT!

Ken Corben
03-05-2007, 04:18 PM
The shot I want to see is when Cameron uses a pair of Redone cameras 4K with the new Arri 8R lenses in 3-D underwater in a cave then projected in 3-D IMAX...it will envelope the audience.

Check out the sample footage clips:

http://www.arri.de/prod/cam/ultra_prime_r8/ultra_prime_r8.htm

I'm sure this lens costs more than a new hybrid car from Toyota:-)

Mark Thorpe
03-05-2007, 11:24 PM
Thanks for posting that Ken,
Damn I gotta get the SWP44 compliant with the housing, that would be awesome to say the least. 117 degrees AOV and almost zero abberation, some tinsy bit in the corners but invisible to the layman.

I second your regards to the manual "Old School" approach. I've also been isolated before with crapped out electrics but no soldering iron! USCWAP (something about a creek without a paddle!!).

Cheers,
Mark.

Michael Hastings
03-06-2007, 06:13 AM
I hadn't even thought of 3d, but the compact size and uncluttered front end of the base RED would lend itself very well to 3d. We made a simple housing for 3d for a guy in England a few years ago. If you just dedicated it to using a particular lens - and the 8R looks awesome - it would be a pretty easy housing to make.

By the way, I have located a new supplier for some glass domes - I have seen samples of one about a 6" and another similar to the Aquatica 9" but in some ways a little nicer.


The shot I want to see is when Cameron uses a pair of Redone cameras 4K with the new Arri 8R lenses in 3-D underwater in a cave then projected in 3-D IMAX...it will envelope the audience.

Check out the sample footage clips:

http://www.arri.de/prod/cam/ultra_prime_r8/ultra_prime_r8.htm

I'm sure this lens costs more than a new hybrid car from Toyota:-)

Michael Hastings
03-06-2007, 06:45 AM
Now the only problem is putting together the cash for a couple of Ultraprime 8Rs.

I wonder if there would be a possibility of using the user group to organize sort of a coop where we could purchase some of these things that most users would only be using a week or two out of the year and set it up almost like a time share where you would own a certain amount of time and say commit only a portion of the time and leave the rest where the owners could rent it and the rent would be paid into the coop. For example the ultraprime 8R costs about 25K US so we sell 20 shares at $1250 apiece. Each user would "own" say 10 days per year (we would have to initially draw lots and also put some rules of about booking or making changes say 30 days in advance). Outside of that any user could rent it for say $75 for additional days and at the end of the year whatever "profit" there was could be distributed. If we wanted to think about 3d we could double the number of "owners" so there would be 2 lenses in the pool and someone who was sure they were going to do 3d could buy 2 shares. (By the it would be okay to buy several shares if you anticipated greater usage) We'd have to talk about outside rentals but it's possible that by renting outside it could pay for itself. The idea of selling only 200 days would be so that everyone has at least a shot at some flexibility in moving days around.

12 mm T2.0 is about 19K US
10 mm T2.1 is about 20K US = about a 16mm on 35slr

By the way - forget Cameron - let's do it ourselves! I'd like to see IMAX size on that baitball of Mark's.


The shot I want to see is when Cameron uses a pair of Redone cameras 4K with the new Arri 8R lenses in 3-D underwater in a cave then projected in 3-D IMAX...it will envelope the audience.

Check out the sample footage clips:

http://www.arri.de/prod/cam/ultra_prime_r8/ultra_prime_r8.htm

I'm sure this lens costs more than a new hybrid car from Toyota:-)

Michael Hastings
03-06-2007, 06:52 AM
Mark have you ever tried the SWP44 with other lenses i.e. like a 28mm still photo lens on a still camera just to see what the optics are like on a higher resolution optical setup. Or is it only a water contact lens? (If so you could try it by pointing down into the water or a water tank) I'm curious to see how it really holds up - it's not that hard to make a lens like that for the relatively low res of even the HDV camcorders that only use 1 to 1.2 megapixels actual output/700 - 800 lines of resolution, but it is harder to do with really high res stuff like the RED or 8 to 12 megapixel still cameras.


Thanks for posting that Ken,
Damn I gotta get the SWP44 compliant with the housing, that would be awesome to say the least. 117 degrees AOV and almost zero abberation, some tinsy bit in the corners but invisible to the layman.

I second your regards to the manual "Old School" approach. I've also been isolated before with crapped out electrics but no soldering iron! USCWAP (something about a creek without a paddle!!).

Cheers,
Mark.

Andrew M.
03-06-2007, 07:03 AM
Lens Control is simple mechanical gearing like in these photos depicting a S16 9.5-57 zoom lens with three seperate mechanical rings for zoom/iris/focus...OLD SCHOOL!

Thanks! Ken and Mark.
8Rs are worth the money!
Canon 6.6 to 66 looks like good choice but it will not work in 4K will it?
Did you see any zoom lenses like this but for S35mm?
Yes, I was watching Cave the movie. Nice shots. Do you know what caves they were shooting it in? Not many large underwater caves shown in the movie.
From my experience in the caves, one thing is to shoot close-ups of the caves features.
Completely other thing is to shoot the large completely submerged caverns or caves.
The 30 to 60 zoom range is required then. It is my experience from still photography though. You don’t use the artificial light though, cave have to have small opening somewhere up there, so we are talking natural light. In such conditions these are the best views you can get. When you are down there it is like you are in the other completely different beautiful world.

The two pictures of the gears marked “AuctionSetup” are coming with the enclosure or you buy it separately?
Andrew

Andrew M.
03-06-2007, 08:26 AM
The Red 18-85mm will be a sweet piece of glass but the FOV at the wide end is the equivalent of a 28mm lens.

Why RED 18-85 is only 28?
28/18=1.555

I think if you use 4K it is S35
S35 size / 35 = 1.09 (24/22) ??? is that correct?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/35_mm_film
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_film_formats

Now RED lenses are rated for S35 or just 35mm? should be for 35mm
So if RED is rated for 35mm (22mm picture width) then S35 of 4K should make this lenses even more wide angle by 1.09 so it should be 18/1.09 = 16.51

or I mixed it all up?

Ken Corben
03-06-2007, 09:16 AM
By the way - forget Cameron - let's do it ourselves! I'd like to see IMAX size on that baitball of Mark's.

Mike I LOVE IT! - That's funny, but alas Cameron will be first cuz he's smart and has the cash. BUT>>>

I am going to ask my 3-D guru if the 8R on the red is the ideal underwater 3-D setup, if so, count me in on the 8R coop for a couple shares and definetly make it a pair - also figure in coop insurance in share costs. Geez what is rental a day $300-500 per lens?

As for the 10mm Zeiss I'm just gonna' write the check if the tests go well.

I think the prime lens chart/test shoot next month(?) with you and George should include the 8R - let's ask George about that?

Will you be in LA anytime, like around NAB, to come see the interoccular 3-D rig based on F900's that I can't wait to adapt to redones making it maybe 1/3 the size, and then put it in a housing made by you and pass it to mark on the bait ball.

Mark Thorpe
03-06-2007, 03:26 PM
Hah,
Sounds like I get the fun part of that job. Good stuff, I'm planning to go hit the baitball again in about a week as thats the best time so far as tides go. Three dives over the incoming tide in the channel should get some nice footage. Cameron may have the cash but I live on this baitball, day in day out! Its on my doorstep and I can film the crap out of it daily without having to pay a massive support crew to keep my coffee warm.

Mike, I have not tried the SWP44 in conjunction with any other glass. The lens can be used topside as well as underwater so when I get the chance I will see how I can go about testing it. Being in Palau the possibility of technical expertise and backup, labs for testing grounds etc, are very limited. I know David (h2opixels) was planning to do some tests along those lines with an SWP44 owned by the BBC NHU but not sure if he has the chance to be able to do that anymore. Regarding the 8R purchasing group, I could be interested but I want to make the decision of shooting format and then go for that.

The whole dream of getting RED is very real but unlike some I am not loaded with beer tokens waiting to take charge of #954 and then go out on a shopping spree to make it the biggest baddest cam on the block. It could very well be in my case that I get the cam, wait to be able to get the lenses I need, wait to get the accessories that will allow me to be able to bugger off into the wilderness for a month or so, wait to be able to afford the editing equipment, wait to be able to afford the storage medium.

Lets not also forget that the housings are gonna be just as much as the camera again so belts have to be tightened eh? Whilst I'd love to be able to think, "Yeah, this time next year I'm gonna be shooting 4K", in reality it may be just a little bit further off than that. So Ken, you're probably gonna get the drop on me with your archives but when I get geared up, living in Palau, boy I aint gonna stop.

Cheers,
Mark.

Mark Thorpe
03-08-2007, 02:30 PM
The bait ball is still surviving the onslaughts. Dived there yesterday on a whim and had a great encounter.

Today is a special day for me. We have an annual event here in Palau we call Shark Week, run by the dive shop where my office premises are located its a week long shark diving extravaganza. Past speakers and guests have included executives from Nat. Geo, Al Giddings, David Doubilet and a whole host of marine biologists, specializing in sharks.

Among this years guests is Rodney Fox, an Australian who survived a Great White Shark attack back in the 60's and who went on to making a very nice living by taking people and film crews out to dive with and film the White Sharks in Australia. His was the support boat for the movie 'Jaws'. Well he's my dive buddy today so I'm hoping to film him with the baitball. Should be a blast. I'll let you know how we get on.

Oh, this is from yesterday.

http://www.4koceanstock.com/Images/BaitballGRS.jpg

Cheers,
Mark.

Andrew M.
03-08-2007, 04:20 PM
Wooww!! Mark, you have a good life...
Great picture, looks like I will get hooked now on sharks instead of caves.

Could you post original size of it, please?

Mark Thorpe
03-09-2007, 12:36 AM
Hey Andrew,
Bills still need to be paid in Paradise. Its a great place to live temporarily whilst collecting imagery but for a lifetime??? For me, maybe not. I do realize I will move back to 'Civilization' one day. Maybe sooner rather than later due to RED and the obvious networking I will have to accomplish to get started. Who knows where that will go. Fingers crossed.

Unfortunately we got skunked on the bait ball today. As part of the dive routine I have to dive with the divers who are paying to attend the event. Rodney and I did dive the channel where the bait ball action occurs but the divers stayed too long at the mouth of the channel to be able to also get to the back given the air consumption before the start of the drift through the channel. Such is life. We did happen on a small school of Surgeonfish being hounded by a bunch of Grey Reef Sharks and a huge Dogtooth Tuna which was nice to see.

I'll post an image soonest on my Blog.

Cheers,
Mark.

Andrew M.
03-09-2007, 05:03 AM
Thank you Mark, I am getting jealous of your life style, not envious, don’t take me wrong. Yes, the best would be to somehow, be in two places at the same time, civilization and in the place, like where you are. Some people in Canada do live 6 months in the big City (Montreal/Toronto/Vancouver) and 6 month, during the winter, down south.
They call them snow birds. I have to find out how they do it or maybe what they do for leaving?

Cheers,
Andrew

Michael Hastings
03-09-2007, 07:16 AM
I am going to NAB and my brother lives in Manhattan Beach so maybe I can take an extra few days and come see it - flights get a little wierd with 2 stops. any chance they would bring it over to NAB?




By the way - forget Cameron - let's do it ourselves! I'd like to see IMAX size on that baitball of Mark's.

Will you be in LA anytime, like around NAB, to come see the interoccular 3-D rig based on F900's that I can't wait to adapt to redones making it maybe 1/3 the size, and then put it in a housing made by you and pass it to mark on the bait ball.

Ken Corben
03-09-2007, 10:19 PM
Mike,

You'll REALLY want to see our recent digital 3-D underwater tests in our 3-D screening room and meet the 3-D gurus. The future is now and your housings for our 3-D rigs will be a significant part of the revolution.

Check your pm/email

Mark Thorpe
03-10-2007, 12:12 AM
Awww, C'mon Ken.......share and share alike! I'll need to see what I'm gonna be taking with me to the (bait) ball.

Cheers,
Mark.
P.S Check out the blog for a piccie of Rod Fox diving in Palau. He's a hoot.....

Ken Corben
03-10-2007, 09:40 AM
Mark,

You are included in the loop when next you make it to LA OR when I show up in Palau with the rig. Is jellyfish lake still alive?

Joel Kaye
03-10-2007, 11:40 AM
Mark,

You are included in the loop when next you make it to LA OR when I show up in Palau with the rig. Is jellyfish lake still alive?

I was there a couple years ago and Jellyfish lake was a fun day. Snorkeling only - but dive down and shoot back up through the jellyfish and sunbeams... very cool stuff.

My friends did a dive on the U.S.S Perry when we were there. Too deep for me though - I stayed on the boat. They had a fairly rough dive... not an easy one.

Mark Thorpe
03-12-2007, 01:30 AM
No worries Ken. I've only ever flown through LA on a stopover from Europe to Fiji. Maybe make a stop there someday. Guess that means you'll have to come back to Palau!! Jellyfish Lake is still alive and well. Last census was done in 2006 with an estimate of 16.6 million Mastiga Jellyfish inhabiting the lake (+ - 3 million). Don't worry folks, they don't sting.

joelnet - who did your friends dive with? I was part of a team that dove the Perry in 2005. I was contracted to do all the deco stop filming and three team members took PD150's in Amphibico housings to the wreck. In all that expedition made 24 CCR dives on the U.S.S Perry over 5 days without major incidents. The USS Perry lies in 240ft off the southern tip of the southernmost landmass in Palau known as Angauar Island. It was sunk by a Japanese mine toward the end of WWII.

Cheers,
Mark.

Joel Kaye
03-12-2007, 08:10 AM
joelnet - who did your friends dive with? I was part of a team that dove the Perry in 2005. I was contracted to do all the deco stop filming and three team members took PD150's in Amphibico housings to the wreck.

I was with a group led by a guy named Jeff Gourley. I just checked the date - it was summer 2003. I'm pretty sure they were one of the first groups on the wreck after it was discovered.

In a tragic twist of fate 'Deep Sea Detectives' contacted Jeff about his footage but wouldn't pay him (or pay him enough) and dove the wreck themselves. The host of the show died sadly. http://www.cdnn.info/safety/s031211/s031211.html

Ken Corben
03-12-2007, 10:09 PM
From Jim:
Drives are cheaper... Flash is better.
If you ask any questions about shock ratings, weather resistance or security, skip right to Flash and do not use Drives. If you are CAREFUL and on a budget, Drives can serve you well.

So, who's gonna' risk drives in their underwater housing? As we all know, it's getting to and from the underwater locations per Jim's statement above that could create heartache in the field.

RED DRIVE 320GB $900

FLASH Options:

RED RAM 64GB $4,500

RED 1.8" SATA Flash 32GB Media approx $1,500

Steve Gibby
03-13-2007, 12:35 AM
No doubt...I think for adventure travel and sports shooting of any kind, especially hand held, Flash is the answer. If it's just a B camera on sticks picking up b-roll, then a drive is fine.

Michael Hastings
03-13-2007, 04:42 AM
I wouldn't worry to much about the hard drives. I have the Ikegami Editcams which have used the same laptop drives since 1999. The drive case has little rubber shockmounts in it (and I would assume the REDDRIVE does too). When powered down during transport it would be almost impossible to damage. Even when operating it would take a severe shock to cause a skip - maybe a really nasty wave pounding ride on the boat - but I doubt if anything you can do underwater would be enough.

By the way - comparing to other technologies - HDV is very G sensitive. We shot a show for Discovery HD called "Crash Test Human" where we simulated driving into a canal, where he has to escape underwater. At the end we wanted a POV simulated shot of the car going into the canal. I did a fast walk with the Sony Z1 and as I got to edge of the canal rotated the camera downward. The picture froze for a frame every time (remember HDV is a long GOP MPEG format), so just the minimal G force of my arm movement caused it to burp in a way that never would have happened on intraframe DV or on my hard drive camera.

Further, we have people using Citidisk and Firestore drives in their housings for both HDV and HVX200. We have one customer using a Citidisk HDV and an HDR-HC3 in a housing that gets dragged a couple miles through a pipe at 200 psi for about 3 hours.



From Jim:
Drives are cheaper... Flash is better.
If you ask any questions about shock ratings, weather resistance or security, skip right to Flash and do not use Drives. If you are CAREFUL and on a budget, Drives can serve you well.

So, who's gonna' risk drives in their underwater housing? As we all know, it's getting to and from the underwater locations per Jim's statement above that could create heartache in the field.

RED DRIVE 320GB $900

FLASH Options:

RED RAM 64GB $4,500

RED 1.8" SATA Flash 32GB Media approx $1,500

Mark Thorpe
03-14-2007, 02:33 AM
Now that we have the storage options I guess John (Gates) will have to get feedback from us to decide on what he's gonna design his unit for. I guess the added size will be the factor when looking at the drive option. BUT they are cheaper than the flash options and larger in capacity so if they flood its an easier pill to swallow, although I would never like to be reaching for that particular packet of pills!

My personal choice would be the drives. Can I get a second? I guess its best to try and get a majority vote and submit that directly to John.

So I vote for Drives.......

Joelnet, yeah tough break. I was here when that happened. Our team went the following year.

Cheers,
Mark.

Michael Hastings
03-14-2007, 08:52 AM
If you leave room for the REDDRIVE you should be able to use REDRAM as it will either be the same size or smaller. I think the Flash card stuff using Compact Flash is either slots on the camera or a very compact adapter that should fit easily.

My guess is that that we may mount the drive in a different position than right on the camera - like we do with the Citidisk and Firestore units.

Finally, my experience with the Fieldpaks on my Ikegamis is that you can easily upgrade the drives - the package is just case to give you something to handle, a connector that can handle multiple insertions better and shock mounting.

RED probably would have done the same thing - that is onboard drives like the Fieldpaks- had it not been for the emergence of ESATA - which makes a cabled drive very easy to achieve.

The option of CF means you can shoot some footage - like the rough ride boat ride - on CF and leave the harddrives powered down until conditions are more favorable.



My personal choice would be the drives. Can I get a second? I guess its best to try and get a majority vote and submit that directly to John.

Cheers,
Mark.

Ken Corben
03-14-2007, 05:59 PM
So the Red Canon lens adapter opens up a few possibilities for an underwater housing. Still, there is no straight forward solution thus far for lens selection?

Thoughts?

Flash vs HDD
I think since there are shooters out there using the citidisk and other HDD solutions maybe the Reddrive will work? It is certainly cool to get 320 minutes of redcode 4K RAW for $1,000 but I am concerned about the "risk" factor Jim mentions. $1500 per 32GB gives us 32 minutes of Redcode 4K RAW underwater and more security for lossless digital acquisition. Tough choice. Maybe we have to utilize 3+ flash drives for a day shoot and then transfer to HDD at night in order to utilze the flash drives the next day?

Clearly the housing needs to accommodate both options in terms of space for HDD and flash in my opinion as stated by aquavideo. Perhaps with field tests a final decision can be made. I'd guess Gibby is right on with Flash as the only hand held solution for professional shoots. One thing is certain, the Flash option will get cheaper over time.

Michael Hastings
03-15-2007, 12:39 PM
Why is flash the only hand held solution? As I mentioned before the Ikegami EditcamII has been using the 2.5" laptop drives since 1999. The Editcam system was specifically designed for ENG which is about 90% handheld. Editcam didn't catch on that much in the US news market (which tends to be Sony-centric and tape-centric and the format used is dictated downward by the Network's choice - which is why Betacam is still so heavily used even though it is thoroughly obsolete technically) Editcam has greater usage in certain parts of Europe. Also remember that when they started out the standard 4 gig drive (very large for a laptop at that time) cost over $1000 - similar to P2 cards today. I don't think disk reliability has ever been a big issue.

In highend movie production, where shots are short and budgets are high, flash may be slightly preferable - but I wouldn't be overly concerned with the "risk factor" of hard drives.



I'd guess Gibby is right on with Flash as the only hand held solution for professional shoots. One thing is certain, the Flash option will get cheaper over time.

Rob Lohman
03-15-2007, 02:19 PM
It isn't the only hand held solution. You can hand-held shoot with RED-DRIVE and RED RAM too, you just need a little bit of gear to mount it to the camera. Like:

http://red.com/images/photo_zoom/redone_30.jpg

Mark Thorpe
03-15-2007, 04:00 PM
At the outset I think I'll opt for the drives. 320 GB of available space. Its size that matters in this issue for me. I have friends using P2 cards with Panny HVX200's and they hate being restricted by the reduced shooting times, especially underwater. One of them is using the FireStore FS100 which allows him more freedom. He's reported no issues thus far. Not wanting to push this envelope through six figure options I just wanna look at getting underwater with RED, push that point with marketing and networking and then as and when time (income) allows look toward pimping out the RED with further underwater options. Allowing for both options in the housing would be a very good point though.

The lens issue is still a hurdle for me.

Hey AquaVideoRed, I mentioned John 'coz he's my manufacturer of choice. I appreciate your presence here and in no way wish to sound that I am ignoring your products.

Cheers,
Mark.

Mike the beginner
03-15-2007, 04:34 PM
Mark, thanks for keeping the underwater sections going it is appreciated.

The choice of what recording to go for is not easy. I will obviously get the red drive since it's sheer storage capacity is a no brainer.

But for shorter periods of recording i am looking at the sata flash at 32 gb since it is likely (i hope) to allow flash buffering and therfore have pre-record.

With a possible 30 minutes of recording time or more depending on format chosen IF the red flash has the pre-record then think of the minutes saved if you are in a situation of waiting for something to appear.

The express card could also be the black horse in faster new technology ramping up the storage capacity.

Question? Will the start up time of the camera be quicker wioth the flash than with red drive?

Question will red drive have pre-record by being linked to any of the flash media?

Question will we be able to transfer the flash recording IN CAMERA to the red drive. These sound to me like big issues. How can one decide on what accessories to purchase and when , if we do not yet know the answers to these questions? Give us a wee hint Red come on.... Just a beginner's thoughts really:innocent:

Mike the beginner

Mark Thorpe
03-15-2007, 04:47 PM
Hi Mike,
Divers and like minded people have kept this thread alive. I am but one small member of the group here who choose to work in the water medium. There is a plethora of knowledge, skill and accomplishments attributed to those who frequent this forum. I'm happy to be able to have a place to chat with these guys, a place to bounce ideas around etc. I may not be the most technically minded person in the bunch but put me in with a couple of white sharks and I'll show you a pair of plums as big as watermellons.

Divers are a strange breed, I'm just happy to have found a calling that allows me the opportunity to blend in.

Cheers,
Mark.

Michael Hastings
03-16-2007, 08:58 AM
I appreciate that - I was kind of wondering. Gates is a good company - in fact pretty much all of the makers of underwater housings are good people with respectable products. As you probably know the dive industry is pretty small and I have always had a pretty friendly relationship with Barret at Light and Motion, Ike at Ikelite before he died, etc. I don't really know John - our paths haven't crossed that much since he bought the company from Elwin.



Hey AquaVideoRed, I mentioned John 'coz he's my manufacturer of choice. I appreciate your presence here and in no way wish to sound that I am ignoring your products.

Cheers,
Mark.

I think the lens is the issue for everybody. It is an easy one if you have $20K or so to spend on the Arri 10 or 12mm prime. Otherwise, it is unclear. I think the Canon EF-S 10-22mm is the most promising of the relatively low cost options. Some of that discussion has moved over to the "Why Not Canon EOS lens thread" but in summary, Birger already has a solution for a number of Canon EF and EF-s for iris and focus control - which is the hard part - and is just awaiting specs from RED on the physical mounting. The EF-S 10-22 looks to be a great solution for our purpose and is already supported by his mount.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=357&page=2


The lens issue is still a hurdle for me.

Michael Hastings
03-16-2007, 09:16 AM
I'm interested in your comment on pre-record. I forget what Sony calls it, but Ikegami calls it retroloop on my Hard disk Editcams. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to have pre-record/retroloop on any of the options - all it is is that it is constantly recording whatever is happening and holding a certain amount - on the Ikegami (which uses the same harddrives as REDDRIVE) you can set it for 3 to 300 seconds - and flushes it when it exceeds the set time limit. A hard drive doesn't really care whether it is spinning and waiting or spinning and recording - it is basically the same energy and wear and tear. When you hit record it just tells the drive to keep all of the already stored info and keep going until you hit stop. This is also why it shouldn't take any startup time from when you hit record, the drive is always in position. (By the way, it doesn't really "flush" it, it just updates the FAT (file allocation table) with the position and name of the file. Unless there is a power save function, the drive is always spinning and this is generally better for the drive - it is harder on the drive to start and stop spinning than just to keep spinning constantly.


But for shorter periods of recording i am looking at the sata flash at 32 gb since it is likely (i hope) to allow flash buffering and therfore have pre-record.

With a possible 30 minutes of recording time or more depending on format chosen IF the red flash has the pre-record then think of the minutes saved if you are in a situation of waiting for something to appear.

Question? Will the start up time of the camera be quicker wioth the flash than with red drive?

Question will red drive have pre-record by being linked to any of the flash media?


Mike the beginner

Ken Corben
03-17-2007, 09:13 AM
Cellulozoic Era
Film stocks evolved to ever faster speeds, color saturation and exposure lattitude.

Chemical Cost Extinction Phase

Taperassic Era
Remember first time you shot Hi-8 underwater? It was revolutionary.
Then 3 chip miniDV WOW!
Then D-betacam - double WOW!
Then HDCAM - the end all?
Oh ya, HDCAM's bastard child HDV.
DVC ProHD and on and on and on...

Imperial Capitalist vs Corporate trickle down wars of 21st century


Disktaceous Era
4K Redraw to disk
So we start with 320GB Redraid HDD and/or flash options.

It will be fun to look at the Darwinian analysis of tapeless recording and this thread several years from now.

Mark Thorpe
03-19-2007, 01:40 AM
Think sooner than that.......what was that? RED TWO ......? Just when you thought it was safe to start saving some beer tokens ............ arghhhhhhh, make it stooooooooooop.

Cheers,
Mark.
P.S Hey guys, the bait ball is still rockin'. Went there today, will post a piccie in the next day or two. Its amazing there are any fish left.

Mike the beginner
03-19-2007, 02:01 AM
Pre record buffer

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

I'm interested in your comment on pre-record. I forget what Sony calls it, but Ikegami calls it retroloop on my Hard disk Editcams. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to have pre-record/retroloop on any of the options - all it is is that it is constantly recording whatever is happening and holding a certain amount - on the Ikegami (which uses the same harddrives as REDDRIVE) you can set it for 3 to 300 seconds - and flushes it when it exceeds the set time limit. A hard drive doesn't really care whether it is spinning and waiting or spinning and recording - it is basically the same energy and wear and tear. When you hit record it just tells the drive to keep all of the already stored info and keep going until you hit stop. This is also why it shouldn't take any startup time from when you hit record, the drive is always in position. (By the way, it doesn't really "flush" it, it just updates the FAT (file allocation table) with the position and name of the file. Unless there is a power save function, the drive is always spinning and this is generally better for the drive - it is harder on the drive to start and stop spinning than just to keep spinning constantly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike the beginner
But for shorter periods of recording i am looking at the sata flash at 32 gb since it is likely (i hope) to allow flash buffering and therfore have pre-record.

With a possible 30 minutes of recording time or more depending on format chosen IF the red flash has the pre-record then think of the minutes saved if you are in a situation of waiting for something to appear.

Question? Will the start up time of the camera be quicker wioth the flash than with red drive?

Question will red drive have pre-record by being linked to any of the flash media?

Mike the beginner

__________________________________________________

Thanks for your reply AquaVideo it is greatly appreciated.

Ken Corben
03-19-2007, 06:49 PM
Great questions!

Pre-record or very fast ramp up time is a vital tool in underwater nat history. If it's not in the initial RED release I am hoping Yes it's coming or is a simple firmare/software update as a buffer in HDD or flash?

Mark Thorpe
03-20-2007, 12:45 AM
I know everyone here hates the devil spawn format of HDV but its given me better clarity than DV of late. Believe me I know of the frustration in spin up times as I hit the loud button sometimes on the Z1 and end up having to wait an excruciating 10 seconds as the STBY blinks green, "OK this time.....doooooh, this time".....what a pain in the arse. It normally gets back up to speed just as the umbilical chord of the Manta has just been finished off by the patrolling Tiger sharks! Always the way.

At least with macro I can take my time. This shot from today on a shallow reef by my office. Nice to be able to just flop into the ocean a stones thrown from this very seat.

Cheers,
Mark

http://www.4koceanstock.com/Images/Blenny.jpg

Mike the beginner
03-20-2007, 01:53 AM
I know everyone here hates the devil spawn format of HDV but its given me better clarity than DV of late. Believe me I know of the frustration in spin up times as I hit the loud button sometimes on the Z1 and end up having to wait an excruciating 10 seconds as the STBY blinks green, "OK this time.....doooooh, this time".....what a pain in the arse. It normally gets back up to speed just as the umbilical chord of the Manta has just been finished off by the patrolling Tiger sharks! Always the way.

At least with macro I can take my time. This shot from today on a shallow reef by my office. Nice to be able to just flop into the ocean a stones thrown from this very seat.

Cheers,
Mark

http://www.4koceanstock.com/Images/Blenny.jpg

Nice Photo, i wonder what the little chap was thinking? Not YOU again!!

Mark have you made any decison on what lens you are going to settle for with the underwater unit. I can only be advised by those who have experience. It just seems logical to use the red zoom lens provided most users felt it was wide enough at 18mm. That the zoom function could be controlled and that there is a facility for the stop start.

Kinda disappointed to hear a few guys are already going for prime lenses at 12mm or so. These are very expensive and would put the whole underwater part of my plans out of bounds.

I will be using the red in Scottish waters in the marine estuaries or in freshwater rivers. From what i am gathering our marine environment does not have good visability. I just wonder then if i would be restricted by this to such an extent that a wide prime would be essential?

If you have any input or anyone else please feel free to suggest. I will in due course speak to someone over here who has experience, first i need to know what underwater unit provides the best price to build ratio for depths no more than about twenty feet.

Mike the beginner

Michael Hastings
03-20-2007, 08:41 AM
Given the other hardware on board I think it will be relatively easy to implement down the road. Again, with non linear media - i.e. hard drives or memory it doesn't even need to be a buffer like on a digital betacam where it has to buffer then lay it off to tape.


Great questions!

Pre-record or very fast ramp up time is a vital tool in underwater nat history. If it's not in the initial RED release I am hoping Yes it's coming or is a simple firmare/software update as a buffer in HDD or flash?

Michael Hastings
03-20-2007, 09:05 AM
Mike:

since 18 is equivalent to a 28mm on a regular still SLR 35 it is not very wide at all and you will be particularly disappointed in poor visibility which needs superwide even more than clear tropical. Also superwide is even more important for underwater motion picture than stills.

I think you are going to find that the Birger Engineering Canon lens adapter using the 10-22 Canon EF-S lens is going to be the cheapest (and maybe one of the best) options.

If you are looking at the red zoom, you are probably better off looking at this Canon mount option. Erik from Birger has suggested that it will be about $1500 and it isn't clear if that will include the mount to the red but if not that probably would add $500 to $1000 making it about $2500 for the mount which will let you use any of the Canon EF lenses - with the ability to do iris and focus remotely as well as regular manual - something even the RED zoom doesn't allow. I suspect the Canon L-type lenses are nearly as good, and possibly better optically than the RED zoom will be, and on the telephoto side you get the image stabilization too - something not offered on the RED lens or even the Zeiss, Cooke, etc. cine lenses. If you are going to shoot true hollywood major motion picture style production, you will want and be able to afford those lenses (at least to rent). But if you are shooting low budget indie style, or documentary type stuff I think you will find the ability to have stabilized long zooms a huge advantage.

To me the RED 18-85 is the mid-level indie style do anything lens.

The EF-S 10-22 and the EF 28-300 would provide phenomenal coverage from superwide to supertelephoto for about $4500 including the mount.

EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM $700
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM ~$700
EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM ~ 1300

If you are really on a budget, there are even cheaper canon zooms that are quite good, but require a little more light.



Nice Photo, i wonder what the little chap was thinking? Not YOU again!!

Mark have you made any decison on what lens you are going to settle for with the underwater unit. I can only be advised by those who have experience. It just seems logical to use the red zoom lens provided most users felt it was wide enough at 18mm. That the zoom function could be controlled and that there is a facility for the stop start.

Kinda disappointed to hear a few guys are already going for prime lenses at 12mm or so. These are very expensive and would put the whole underwater part of my plans out of bounds.

I will be using the red in Scottish waters in the marine estuaries or in freshwater rivers. From what i am gathering our marine environment does not have good visability. I just wonder then if i would be restricted by this to such an extent that a wide prime would be essential?

If you have any input or anyone else please feel free to suggest. I will in due course speak to someone over here who has experience, first i need to know what underwater unit provides the best price to build ratio for depths no more than about twenty feet.

Mike the beginner

Ken Corben
03-20-2007, 11:30 AM
I think you are going to find that the Birger Engineering Canon lens adapter using the 10-22 Canon EF-S lens is going to be the cheapest (and maybe one of the best) options.


Mike,

Based on the Canon lens tech specs what will be the final underwater angle of coverage thru the appropriate dome on the mysterium sensor? 100 deg?

Best guess with out actual testing - underwater shot in 4K then projected in 2K will audiences notice or care about the difference between this lens and a Zeiss prime?

Best guess - underwater shot in 4K then broadcast at 1080i?

The Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is Canon's widest zoom lens (in fact widest lens of any type) for the Canon 1.6x DSLRs which accept EF-S mount lenses, i.e. the Canon Digital Rebel, Canon Digital Rebel XT and Canon EOS 20D.

EF-S lenses have a shorter back focus distance (i.e. the rear element is closer to the image plane) then EF series lenses. This, in theory, permits higher lens performance with very short focal length lenses - and 10-22mm counts as "very short"! They have a reduced size image circle to match the 1.6x APS-C format sensors and a modified lens mount which prevents them being mounted on full frame camera. If they were mounted on a full frame camera, not only would they not cover the frame, but the SLR mirror would hit the back of the lens.

Michael Hastings
03-20-2007, 12:53 PM
The whole deal with the EF-S lens is that the Digital SLR sensors (except for a couple of Canons with full frame sensors) are all about the same size as RED. Therefore all of the backfocus, image circle stuff is fine for working with the RED.

RED 35mm 22.2 x 12.6 = 25.52 diagonal
RED S35mm 24.4 x 13.7 = 27.98 diagonal
EF-S may vignette on S35 but is pretty close and may be fine.

Canon REBEL XT etc. 22.2 x 14.8 mm CMOS sensor = 26.68 diagonal

25.52/26.68 = .956 multiplier for 35mm aperture
27.98/26.68 = 1.048 multiplier for 35mm aperture

10mm =
= 107.5 degree diagonal field of view on Canon REBEL XTi
= 102.77 degrees on RED 35mm
= 112.75 degrees on RED S35mm

These are the actual angles for the RED and REBEL XTi, when you start looking at the regular EF lenses on the chart you need to multiply the diagonal times .62 to get what it will be for RED since they are generally speced for full frame 35mm SLR.

EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM 75°– 8°15' will be 47°– 5°
(about $2199 at B&H)
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM** 34°– 12° will be 21°– 7.5°
(about $1699 at B&H)

http://www.usa.canon.com/app/pdf/lens/EFLensChart.pdf

In the near term audiences certainly aren't going to notice since they are used to watching a lot of stuff at the local theatre that isn't particularly sharp and they won't have much digital originated material to compare it to.

You get into a situation where we're trying to separate the difference between noticeable and distinguishable. In other words side by side you may be able to distinguish the difference, but say going from one room to another it may not be noticed.

Going to regular high def I highly doubt there is any real difference. Even full 1920p1080 is only 2 megapixel and hardly anybody actual records this - F900 HDCAM, Varicam, all of the HDVs, actually record between 1 and 1.5 megapixels with a fair amount of compression.

I don't think you can go wrong with a $5K to $10 K used cine prime. 20K to 25 K for a new ultra prime gives me some pause. Remember not only do we have a cost issue, but if Birger's mount works and is available fairly quickly it also solves the focus and iris control issues very nicely.

I think when we want to shoot for IMAX output, you are going to want absolutely the best, otherwise we can look at the used lenses or the Canon option as possibly fine for the long term - but definitely fine for the short term until we see what becomes available. Just the sheer number of new cameras is going to distort both the used and new market for high level Cine lenses. (even if only a third of the 1500 REDs go with high level lenses that will probably double to triple the annual sales of Arri, Zeiss and Cooke Lenses) initially prices on used are going to get much higher - there just aren't many out there. But eventually either Zeiss and Cooke will lower some prices or Schneider/Century and RED will start creating more lower cost new lenses. It wouldn't surprise me at all that we could convince Jim Jannard to create a 10 or 12mm prime in the sub $5K range - maybe as the next lens to be offered a year or so down the road.

I mentioned it on another thread, but the big thing about the Birger mount is that it opens the door to all of the EF lenses which is huge by itself, but further Erik confirmed that the Image stabilization works on the telephoto and telephoto zooms. That is just phenomenal capability for Nature photography as well as any handheld stuff. Arri, Zeiss, Cooke, RED, etc. just don't really have the volume necessary to work the stabilization into their engineering, and since their prime movers are the film industry - which doesn't really need the stabilized stuff - they probably don't feel much of a need to do it.

The 28-300 F3.5 is their L series (which is the "pro" level) with stabilizer and combined with 10-22 gives you superwide to supertelephoto for less than $3000 and I would suggest that they will be pretty damn sharp.


I think you are going to find that the Birger Engineering Canon lens adapter using the 10-22 Canon EF-S lens is going to be the cheapest (and maybe one of the best) options.


Mike,

Based on the Canon lens tech specs what will be the final underwater angle of coverage thru the appropriate dome on the mysterium sensor? 100 deg?

Best guess with out actual testing - underwater shot in 4K then projected in 2K will audiences notice or care about the difference between this lens and a Zeiss prime?

Best guess - underwater shot in 4K then broadcast at 1080i?

The Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM is Canon's widest zoom lens (in fact widest lens of any type) for the Canon 1.6x DSLRs which accept EF-S mount lenses, i.e. the Canon Digital Rebel, Canon Digital Rebel XT and Canon EOS 20D.

EF-S lenses have a shorter back focus distance (i.e. the rear element is closer to the image plane) then EF series lenses. This, in theory, permits higher lens performance with very short focal length lenses - and 10-22mm counts as "very short"! They have a reduced size image circle to match the 1.6x APS-C format sensors and a modified lens mount which prevents them being mounted on full frame camera. If they were mounted on a full frame camera, not only would they not cover the frame, but the SLR mirror would hit the back of the lens.

Ken Corben
03-20-2007, 02:58 PM
Mike you ROCK!

Where do I send my deposit?

Sharky

Michael Hastings
03-20-2007, 03:40 PM
The address is on the website.


Seriously, in the next few days I will try to put some RED-like ball park pricing together.


Mike you ROCK!

Where do I send my deposit?

Sharky

Mark Thorpe
03-20-2007, 03:47 PM
Hey Mike,
Are you related to Evin Grant at all?? Fantastic post there and something that cleared a lot of things up for me. How are the designs for the housing coming along?

Cheers,
Mark.

Michael Hastings
03-20-2007, 05:03 PM
No relation, but I really appreciate all of the knowledge and thought that has been assembled here on REDUSER. By the way, no relation to BirgerEngineer either, in fact I haven't even spoken to them yet, all communications have been through REDUSER. I just like the fact that they had already created something that I wanted (they have apparently been making their mount for several years for the scientific and industrial markets) Since they have done the hard part already - the electronics and the actual bayonet mount - adapting it to the RED camera should be fairly straight forward.

As far as designs, they are pretty much in my head until I get my hands on an actual camera. A lot of the physical questions will be answered for me when I see it at NAB. As I said before, I think it will lend itself very well to the normal cylindrical style that we do everyday, with physical size specs about like those for the Sony FX7/V1. Maybe a little longer depending on how REDDrive gets mounted. (I prefer to go longer rather than larger diameter if it is possible)

About $3800 will get you housing setup for RED with 10-22mm Canon EF-S with iris and focus controls for Birger Canon EF mount and 6" acrylic dome, zoom (depending on gearing required may be a a couple hundred extra more for geared zoom, but we would at least give you a simple, "not so slick but works" friction control to change zoom). Clear backplate with view of RED LCD inside housing. 3 or 4 Miscellaneous camera controls (I don't even know what is available on the camera.) Standard Depth rating 175-200ft.

Add $1000 - $1500 for external housing for RED LCD.

Add $499 for 8" Acrylic dome.
Add $600-1K for 6" glass dome.
Add $1300 to $2K for 8" glass dome.

Add $250 - $900 for deeper rated front plate (depending on thicker Acrylic or aluminum)

Add $1800 for Aluminum Cylinder body instead of PVC. This is more for the 250 ft+ crowd - PVC is probably fine for greater depths but if you know you are going to push it, the added peace of mind of Aluminum for those guys is probably worth it.

More Rectangular shaped aluminum housing can be done but will add $3K to $10K depending on configuration and demand - and I am not sure you will gain much.

Note: domes are not normally full domes. They are slices, but the diameter is given as if full dome so you can calculate virtual image focus distances. Infinity is at 3 times the Radius of the dome so for 6" dome infinity is at 9" in front of dome and for 8" dome infinity is 12" in front. (The virtual image for closer subjects is progressively closer - i.e. 3 ft real equals virtual image at 7 inches in front of a 6" dome). This has to be handled either through 1) close focus lenses (most of the modern consumer and prosumer video cameras can do this automatically because they can combine movement of the zoom elements with the focus elements to achieve macro focus throughout a portion of the zoom range) or 2) through use of a closeup lens, so you will want a +3 or +4 closeup filter or better an achromat diopter (which is a closeup lens that is corrected for a flatter focus field). A dome is just a negative diopter so it takes a corresponding positive diopter to compensate. Six inch dome is about a negative 4 diopter. 3) There is a possibility that focus could be corrected via a shim behind the lens mount (this is what was often done in the days of c-mount 16mm underwater systems) but I have to talk to some of the lens gurus about the feasibility of that.

Note: it may make more sense to have a custom battery pack for the camera so that it fits in the housing better (i.e. a long thin pack), but they would likely be on the order of $200 each. If budget is tight I am sure it wouldn't be hard to make them work as your main RED battery - won't be quite as slick as a V-mount but it would work.



Hey Mike,
Are you related to Evin Grant at all?? Fantastic post there and something that cleared a lot of things up for me. How are the designs for the housing coming along?

Cheers,
Mark.

Mark Thorpe
03-20-2007, 06:18 PM
Thanks Mike,
PM'd you this morning.

Mark.

Mark Thorpe
03-20-2007, 11:14 PM
I guess one of the biggest concerns with the heat emissions from HDD's and the Camera is that of heat build up leading to condensation on the inside surface of dome / flat ports etc.

Did we ever get any indication of the amount of heat emission to be expected from RED and accessories? How did RED counteract that issue?

Cheers,
Mark.

David Nardini
03-21-2007, 02:57 AM
Hello all,

After some discussion with a variety of folk, for domes, the conclusion seems that the Aquatica 8" dome is the target to beat (in terms of folk wanting to get 100 to 110 degree FOV). It's a cast dome, so the surfaces will be the most concentric. Then marry it up with a +2.5 diopter plano-convex lens (ensure it's very well coated).

On the Ivanoff trail, I'm told that getting a FOV greater than 90 degree is going to be challenging (the ports get to be BIG). So maybe I was chasing the wrong thread on this one ...

It's really good news that the Canon EF-S 10-22 is attracting so much attention, from the u/w community. I suspect that if you have a good sample (their quality control seems better than other similar vendor lenses in this category) I doubt you will notice any significant differences for u/w work when compared to the mega $-priced Zeiss optics (this is ignoring how fast the lens is). The port optics will be the critical factor.

Finally, I made contact with Stephen Greenaway a few weeks back, he makes an interesting housing (http://www.greenawaymarine.com/1C.HTM).
For folks based in the UK, it may prove worth having a chat with him. I'll certainly be popping down to see him soon and look at one of his 'OPTOLITE PORTS', which has many of the properties I'm looking for. What are the FOV limitations (keeping edge quality in mind) ?

I wonder how hot the RED ONE will run ? I was not planning on an aluminum housing, but I guess it would be better for heat dissipation ?

Finally, who is likely to be the first UK RED ONE which is being planned to be housed (anybody in the first 100) ? Would they be interested to meet up somewhere in the UK to share first impressions of the RED ONE ?

David Nardini
03-21-2007, 03:16 AM
... via a shim behind the lens mount ...

yep ... for just u/w work, I find this works better than using +diopter lenses ... minimizes the amount of 'glass' involved in the dome optics, potential reflections, etc.

Negative : it wont focus above the water interface (also if you use a +ve diopter lens).

PS : Some early manual focus lenses could be adapted to focus closer (remove minimum focus stop) but that is hard to do nowdays :sad:

Mike the beginner
03-21-2007, 04:42 AM
Hello all,

After some discussion with a variety of folk, for domes, the conclusion seems that the Aquatica 8" dome is the target to beat (in terms of folk wanting to get 100 to 110 degree FOV). It's a cast dome, so the surfaces will be the most concentric. Then marry it up with a +2.5 diopter plano-convex lens (ensure it's very well coated).

On the Ivanoff trail, I'm told that getting a FOV greater than 90 degree is going to be challenging (the ports get to be BIG). So maybe I was chasing the wrong thread on this one ...

It's really good news that the Canon EF-S 10-22 is attracting so much attention, from the u/w community. I suspect that if you have a good sample (their quality control seems better than other similar vendor lenses in this category) I doubt you will notice any significant differences for u/w work when compared to the mega $-priced Zeiss optics (this is ignoring how fast the lens is). The port optics will be the critical factor.

Finally, I made contact with Stephen Greenaway a few weeks back, he makes an interesting housing (http://www.greenawaymarine.com/1C.HTM).
For folks based in the UK, it may prove worth having a chat with him. I'll certainly be popping down to see him soon and look at one of his 'OPTOLITE PORTS', which has many of the properties I'm looking for. What are the FOV limitations (keeping edge quality in mind) ?

I wonder how hot the RED ONE will run ? I was not planning on an aluminum housing, but I guess it would be better for heat dissipation ?

Finally, who is likely to be the first UK RED ONE which is being planned to be housed (anybody in the first 100) ? Would they be interested to meet up somewhere in the UK to share first impressions of the RED ONE ?



This is like XMAS with all that news. Where do i begin?

Giant thank you for the brilliant feedback from Mike (AquaVideo) and also sharkguy.

Let me just say that i am always appreciative of any help i get and like to make a point of repaying those who help in some form or another.

Firstly to Mike regarding the use of the canon. I intend to do salmon and sea trout fishing videos as well as wildlife and nature stuff. The canon lens at 3.5 to 4.5 is not very fast. I take it that the availaible light compared to say a lens with a 2.8 f stop is going to make a difference, but how big a difference?

The other point: Both canon lenses i,e, the 10mm -22mm and the 28mm-300mm vary their aperture when you focus with them right? That would preclude the use of a matt box if using it for normal filming out of water.

I am thinking that i need a matt box and filters since i am going to be working in and around water a lot. So i would love a lens that suits both above and below water. What do you guys think? I may have this wrong since i am just new to all this (all theory).


Mike right now you have me totally convinced to go the canon route. But are you certain or more importantly is Eric at birger engineering 100% certain that we will have focusing and image stabilisation with those two lenses mentioned. That would be trully awesome, i am in:biggrin:

Finally to H2opixels. I am number 312 on red so i would be happy to meet up with you and others to go over the red camera. I have too much to learn:help:


Mike the beginner

Michael Hastings
03-21-2007, 05:04 AM
I took a quick look at the greenaway site - a couple of points:

isn't the optolite just an Ivanoff or modified Ivanoff type corrector?

In discussing aluminum construction he states that at 80 meters the housing is subjected to tons of pressure per square inch - in fact at 80M the pressure is about 115 psi and well within the capabilities of either PVC or aluminum.

As far as heat - it is hard to predict since RED hasn't published the power specs as far as I can tell. We have some customers that run the HVX200 (which runs pretty hot by itself) with the Firestore drive. Initially we had it right underneath the hottest part of the HVX200 and it did overheat after about 40 minutes, so we made sure there was more separation. About 2 weeks ago one of my customers spent a week shooting in the Keys (with the pvc housing) and actually had a thermometer in the housing and on dives of 30 minutes to an hour the temperature wasn't going over 100. I've been told the drives typically shut down at 160. The firestore runs a bit hotter than plain drives because of the display and built in computer functions, but the REDDRIVE may be close since it is two drives.

By the way, how did you come up with 2.5 diopter? by my calculations it should be closer to +3 which is probably easier to find.



Hello all,

After some discussion with a variety of folk, for domes, the conclusion seems that the Aquatica 8" dome is the target to beat (in terms of folk wanting to get 100 to 110 degree FOV). It's a cast dome, so the surfaces will be the most concentric. Then marry it up with a +2.5 diopter plano-convex lens (ensure it's very well coated).

On the Ivanoff trail, I'm told that getting a FOV greater than 90 degree is going to be challenging (the ports get to be BIG). So maybe I was chasing the wrong thread on this one ...

Finally, I made contact with Stephen Greenaway a few weeks back, he makes an interesting housing (http://www.greenawaymarine.com/1C.HTM).

For folks based in the UK, it may prove worth having a chat with him. I'll certainly be popping down to see him soon and look at one of his 'OPTOLITE PORTS', which has many of the properties I'm looking for. What are the FOV limitations (keeping edge quality in mind) ?

I wonder how hot the RED ONE will run ? I was not planning on an aluminum housing, but I guess it would be better for heat dissipation ?

David Nardini
03-21-2007, 05:19 AM
...
isn't the optolite just an Ivanoff or modified Ivanoff type corrector?
...
By the way, how did you come up with 2.5 diopter? by my calculations it should be closer to +3 which is probably easier to find.

I agree, the Optolite looks very much like an Ivanoff to me too ;-)
The good news (I guess) is that they do machine them, so there is a supply -> once we can test one to ensure it performs in the +90 degree FOV zone.

+2.5 is what Peter Scoones uses (with 8inch domes); if he's happy with the performance I was going to try with that as a starting point (the +2.5 are made to order). No harm in testing a +3 as well and comparing results.

Erik Widding
03-21-2007, 05:44 AM
The other point: Both canon lenses i,e, the 10mm -22mm and the 28mm-300mm vary their aperture when you focus with them right? That would preclude the use of a matt box if using it for normal filming out of water.

Aperture varies with zoom, not focus. At any given focal length the aperture is constant.


Mike right now you have me totally convinced to go the canon route. But are you certain or more importantly is [Erik] at birger engineering 100% certain that we will have focusing and image stabilisation with those two lenses mentioned. That would be trully awesome, i am in:biggrin:


Yes and yes. Product shipping for many years. But, don't buy lenses until we do a little more testing, and offer a quality rating. Some may be better suited than others.

The 28-300 might be a bad choice. It is a push pull zoom (not rotary) and it varies in length a great deal. Longer at a longer focal length, which is going to be an issue with a dome. The 70-200's are a much better choice, available in f/2.8 with and without image stabilization, and in an f/4. Focusing and zoom are both internal, which means the lens does not change length.

This obviously leaves a hole in coverage. Unfortunately you are going to need a third lens.

We will have done more testing by NAB... Which is when a (big) announcement will be made... Don't mean to be elusive. We want to do some more testing and evaluation before we announce whether we have a great product or a really great product; and at least be able to offer an initial indication as to which lenses we will be recomending, and possibly more importantly, recomending against.

Mike the beginner
03-21-2007, 06:32 AM
Aperture varies with zoom, not focus. At any given focal length the aperture is constant.Quote

Yes and yes. Product shipping for many years. But, don't buy lenses until we do a little more testing, and offer a quality rating. Some may be better suited than others.Quote

The 28-300 might be a bad choice. It is a push pull zoom (not rotary) and it varies in length a great deal. Longer at a longer focal length, which is going to be an issue with a dome. The 70-200's are a much better choice, available in f/2.8 with and without image stabilization, and in an f/4. Focusing and zoom are both internal, which means the lens does not change length.Quote



This obviously leaves a hole in coverage. Unfortunately you are going to need a third lens.

We will have done more testing by NAB... Which is when a (big) announcement will be made... Don't mean to be elusive. We want to do some more testing and evaluation before we announce whether we have a great product or a really great product; and at least be able to offer an initial indication as to which lenses we will be recomending, and possibly more importantly, recomending against.

Not sure how to reply in multi quotes but:

I was meaning the outer part of the lens changes, therefore might effect the use of a matt box on those type of lenses when zooming.

Even better since i have the 300mm prime ordered anyway, the 70-200mm f2.8 would be fine with image stabilization wow. But i cant seem to figure how the focusing works, since the lens is a photo lens rather than a cine lens, are you saying your iris focusing would make the zoom track focus?

I understand about the lenses so will hold off till NAB



All looking really good then, exciting stuff.

Mike the begionner

Andrew M.
03-21-2007, 07:11 AM
I will not agree that Canon will be probable better glass then RED zoom or prime.
I have noticed that Canon EF lenses did drop in price lately.
Also I see, not only from my experience, that the glass is too soft for more than 1-1.5MPixels (RGB) presentation. I have a feeling that Canaon is preparing completely new lenses with new glass in it for its 8MP and up sensors.
RED has all options open right now for experimenting with glass and the design of the lenses. I agree that there is a difference between distinguishable and noticeable, for some time though. Since we are witnessing a revolution going on in the digital cinema, very fast, the consumers (not the cinematographers) will get used to the better quality of material and will demand it.
So if we want to sell our material two maybe even 4 years from now we better watch the quality, it has to be at minimum full 2MP (RGB) and lenses have to support it.
IMO, 2MP (RGB) resolution I will rate at 6 to 8 MP of single CMOS sensor.

Michael Hastings
03-21-2007, 07:23 AM
Push pull zoom would be bad for the housing too.

Focus works normally - rotate the ring and it focuses - the advantage of the AF lenses is that the Birger unit can control focus using the built-in AF motors - unlike any of the older lenses or cine lenses which would require external gears, motors, etc.

When they talk about F stop changing they mean as you zoom the F stop increases since the front element where the light comes in is the same size - the iris doesn't change but the F stop does because you are using less of the light coming through the front element as you increase magnification. To keep the F stop the same the front element would have to grow when you zoomed in.

As far as iris, since the iris is internal with motors, again the Birger unit lets you easily control iris remotely. The downside of the newer EF type lenses is there is no manual iris ring so if you were shooting handheld you would still have to have the control box to change iris rather than just grabbing the iris ring on the lens.

The newer Nikons also have only internal iris - the problem with the NIkons though is that instead of internal motors, they use a little pin which fits into the camera and gets moved by a motor in the camera body. Developing a smooth little motor setup to do that isn't that big of a problem if you are spreading it out over hundreds of thousands of cameras like Nikon does - but making it work on a short run unit may be more difficult than it is worth.

As far as the outer part of the lens changing, I think most of the newer lenses have internal focus, meaning the elements move internally but the outside doesn't actually rotate. I am sure that info is on the Canon website.

In short, the 10-22mm will be an essential lens. The others you should wait on until Erik gives us more info. Generally you won't want the zooms that require a push pull action to zoom. As far as low light there are a bunch of primes that are very fast.

If you are going to use the Birger mount you might also look at the EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM which at $3800 also has Image stabilization and a focus preset function, and you wouldn't have to bounce back and forth between Canon and PL. If you can live with F4 the same basic lens is $1100. The EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM at $1699 could be pretty awesome too and would cover most of the rest of the range until the RED zoom arrives. Throw in the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM for $1100 and you would have the entire range covered, and if/when better options become available it will be easy to get most of your money back on resale as these are some of the most popular lenses out there. Grab a REBEL XTi for $800 or a 30D and you'd have a hell of a still setup as well. (Set it aside on a tripod and get some time lapse shots as well.)

I think if I were looking at a PL mount RED lens I would hold out for the 18-85 zoom. It seems to me it is the best bang for the buck and suits both the traditional cine style shooting and more ENG/EFP/documentary style as well. I think they will sell a lot of them, so all of the accessory and support options will be there.


Not sure how to reply in multi quotes but:

I was meaning the outer part of the lens changes, therefore might effect the use of a matt box on those type of lenses when zooming.

Even better since i have the 300mm prime ordered anyway, the 70-200mm f2.8 would be fine with image stabilization wow. But i cant seem to figure how the focusing works, since the lens is a photo lens rather than a cine lens, are you saying your iris focusing would make the zoom track focus?

I understand about the lenses so will hold off till NAB



All looking really good then, exciting stuff.

Mike the begionner

Michael Hastings
03-21-2007, 07:37 AM
I'm certainly not saying they are better, I am suggesting that they are at least very close. Again, I am primarily talking about the L-series lenses which are the pro line for full frame film shooting, which is 2.5 times the size of the RED imager. Not only are these lenses designed for pro use with similar resolution requirements (is anyone suggesting that the 12MP Mysterium is sharper than the best 35mm films from Fuji and Kodak?) - but we will be shooting with the (usually better) center portion of the lens image only.

We aren't going to know any of this for sure until we get our hands on actual samples. However, I think we can reasonably speculate about what ballpark we are in, and given the lenses and resale value that I spoke of in the previous post - I think the downside of using the Canons is very small.


I will not agree that Canon will be probable better glass then RED zoom or prime.
I have noticed that Canon EF lenses drop in price lately.
Also I see, not only from my experience, that the glass is too soft for more than 1-1.5MPixels (RGB) presentation. I have a feeling that Canaon is preparing completely new lenses with new glass in it for its 8MP and up sensors.
RED has all options open right now for experimenting with glass and the design of the lenses. I agree that there is a difference between distinguishable and noticeable, for some time though. Since we are witnessing a revolution going on in the digital cinema, very fast, the consumers (not the cinematographers) will get used to the better quality of material and will demand it.
So if we want to sell our material two maybe even 4 years from now we better watch the quality, it has to be at minimum full 2MP (RGB) and lenses have to support it.
IMO, 2MP (RGB) resolution I will rate at 6 to 8 MP of single CMOS sensor.

Steve Gibby
03-21-2007, 08:30 AM
Nice work guys...this thread is producing some interesting answers! Very cool...

Aluminum: In the first "Splash your RED" thread, in mid-January I mentioned that my custom surface sports housings have almost always been made of aluminum. It is strong, lightweight, and dissipates heat very well. IMO, for the same reasons, aluminum may be the way to go for dive housings also. Link: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=370&highlight=aluminum+housing

Mike: I will be one of the first people to receive a RED One camera (#8). I've been networking with Sharkguy for a few months now - awesome guy with unique talents and concepts. I mentioned to him that I'd be very happy to have RED #8 be measured for housings. No firm date on when I'll receive #8, but I would guess it would be somewhere in April, either before or after NAB. Ken (Sharkguy) can coordinate with you guys on when/where we can hook up to measure the camera. Being a surface water sports producer/shooter, I'm happy to help out my subsurface shooter relatives in any way I can!

Evin or Brook: IMO water shooting, whether it be surface water sports, or subsurface adventure/nature shooting belongs in the family of genres that is non-hardlined EFP, and occasionally hardlined EFP. It is usually in the sports, adventure travel, or documentary genres. Perhaps this thread should be moved to the "EFP/ENG for RED" forum?

Michael Hastings
03-21-2007, 09:12 AM
Gibby: Thanks for you comments and willingness to help us get going on the underwater setup.

Re: Aluminum. I'm not knocking aluminum - I got my start because I worked at Vincent Brass and Aluminum while going to college and bought a cutoff cheap to make my 1st housing (circa 1980). By itself aluminum isn't even that much more expensive - the aluminum for the housing is only about $50 more. It is the fact that PVC does the job well in a lot of cases and is much easier/quicker to work with - partly because all of the processes are in our control. Just sending them out to be hardcoated or powder coated can add a week or two to the process. Everything is more difficult and time consuming - machining, drilling, tapping, welding, etc. and in short run manufacturing you are paying for time not materials. Also, we have already confirmed that Sharkguy's housing will be aluminum, mainly because he is one of those "deathwish" guys that goes extremely deep on occasion - and aluminum isn't that much more.

We will determine that pretty quickly whether heat is a big problem in the PVC unit once we get the camera. I agree that heat buildup is the biggest potential issue for the RED.

However, with other cameras in general - the heat issue can go both ways because it is more accurate to say that aluminum transfers heat more quickly so for instance for surface shooting in the sun you better make sure your aluminum housing is light colored or it will get pretty hot inside pretty quickly. Basically, the HVX200 with the Firestore is the first camera where the heat issue was a serious consideration for the PVC housing, and even there it seems to work out okay. Given the heavy on board processing with the RED, we will have to keep an eye on it. If it is an issue, just going to an aluminum frontplate would solve it, and I have thought of that for other reasons having to do with greater flexibility with interchangeable ports or the possibility of a Nikonos mount that was discussed a long time ago.

If you look at my ball park prices, (in post #144) I listed $250 - 900 for a deeper frontplate option. The lower price is just for a thicker acrylic plate, the higher is for an aluminum frontplate. The aluminum front does have greater depth capability - since the front is a fairly broad flat surface it is usually the first limiting factor in terms of depth rating - but the aluminum also makes it easier to start bolting different port mounts on it. You can do it on acrylic, but at some point all that millin', drillin', and tappin' on a piece of acrylic gets a little scary for deep water work.



Nice work guys...this thread is producing some interesting answers! Very cool...

Aluminum: In the first "Splash your RED" thread, in mid-January I mentioned that my custom surface sports housings have almost always been made of aluminum. It is strong, lightweight, and dissipates heat very well. IMO, for the same reasons, aluminum may be the way to go for dive housings also. Link: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=370&highlight=aluminum+housing

Ken (Sharkguy) can coordinate with you guys on when/where we can hook up to measure the camera. Being a surface water sports producer/shooter, I'm happy to help out my subsurface shooter relatives in any way I can!

Evin or Brook: IMO water shooting, whether it be surface water sports, or subsurface adventure/nature shooting belongs in the family of genres that is non-hardlined EFP, and occasionally hardlined EFP. It is usually in the sports, adventure travel, or documentary genres. Perhaps this thread should be moved to the "EFP/ENG for RED" forum?

Steve Gibby
03-21-2007, 09:25 AM
Mike,

Thanks for that insight on materials. Since the deeper you dive, the cooler the water gets (unless there is a thermocline situation), it seems that if RED has done their work on effective cooling of their camera, that the transfer of heat through the skin of a housing should become less of an issue the colder the water is - in essence, if the camera cools well to begin with, and a housing throughputs heat effectively, and the outside water is cool, then there shouldn't be problems.

You're right...all of my surface sports water housings have been light in color to reflect heat. This is especially critical when we shoot in the tropics, where the air temperature is maybe 90 degrees Fahrenheit, and the water is about the same. In temperate latitudes, where the water/air are cooler, heat inside the housings has rarely been an issue.

Andrew M.
03-21-2007, 09:25 AM
I'm certainly not saying they are better, I am suggesting that they are at least very close. Again, I am primarily talking about the L-series lenses which are the pro line for full frame film shooting, which is 2.5 times the size of the RED imager. Not only are these lenses designed for pro use with similar resolution requirements (is anyone suggesting that the 12MP Mysterium is sharper than the best 35mm films from Fuji and Kodak?) - but we will be shooting with the (usually better) center portion of the lens image only.

We aren't going to know any of this for sure until we get our hands on actual samples. However, I think we can reasonably speculate about what ballpark we are in, and given the lenses and resale value that I spoke of in the previous post - I think the downside of using the Canons is very small.

Mike, I just noticed the L (Cannon) after I did post my answer.
I do not have any experience with L and just by reading about it, it looks like much better lenses, though the newer EF-S should be much “more modern” manufactured by new standards and using new materials. Who knows what to think about it?
Don’t forget though that 135 format is two times the surface of S35 and the pictures taken on the 135 format film, usually are to be shown in very small picture formats, journal size in the most. Posters and large displays are heavily post processed and if not, then are shot on the 120 format film (56X118mm – 2.1 to 1 ratio)
So I will argue that Misterium has much better resolution then 135, even if you take the whole surface of 135 frame film versus S35 Misterium.
First the film is not completely flat, less particles in 135 frame then pixels in S35 frame.
Second Misteriumm in most cases will be stretched to 40 to 60 inches picture size to watch if not cinema size screen. The film is stretched to the newspaper size. (we are talking still lenses here, remember)
So when you design still lenses you have more slag then the movie lenses.

Michael Hastings
03-21-2007, 10:04 AM
It's true that posters may be shot on larger film. But 266 pixels per inch is considered a minimum for magazine photos and of course the other elements are typically 600 to 1200 dpi and photo quality prints from even very cheap printers are much higher res. Consider that the mysterium image blown up to just 60 inches is only 75 pixels per inch - the difference is the likely viewing distance.

My sort of intuitive point here is to say that both SLR and cine people have many years of shooting to the same medium - 35mm film - and regardless of the direction of the frame and frame size - pros have always wanted/insisted on getting the most they can from that film - and are willing to pay for it. I think it is generally agreed that 2K clearly isn't as sharp as film and 4K is probably where you need to be to be comparable with film.

I would suggest to you that the price difference between a Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L at $1000 each compared to a Zeiss Ultra prime T1.9 135mm at $10,000 each has more to do with the economies of scale in making tens of thousands of the Canon lens as opposed to tens or maybe a few hundred of the Zeiss Ultra Prime pl mount lens, than it does with the optical quality. Again, there is almost certainly a little bit of improvement with the Zeiss based on slightly better design, components, and stringent quality control, but I would suggest that the difference in quality is not on the order of the difference in price, and in fact is fairly small.

There is a rule of thumb in manufacturing which says the price will drop in half when you can double the sales volume.



Mike, I just noticed the L (Cannon) after I did post my answer.
I do not have any experience with L and just by reading about it, it looks like much better lenses, though the newer EF-S should be much “more modern” manufactured by new standards and using new materials. Who knows what to think about it?
Don’t forget though that 135 format is two times the surface of S35 and the pictures taken on the 135 format film, usually are to be shown in very small picture formats, journal size in the most. Posters and large displays are heavily post processed and if not, then are shot on the 120 format film (56X118mm – 2.1 to 1 ratio)
So I will argue that Misterium has much better resolution then 135, even if you take the whole surface of 135 frame film versus S35 Misterium.
First the film is not completely flat, less particles in 135 frame then pixels in S35 frame.
Second Misteriumm in most cases will be stretched to 40 to 60 inches picture size to watch if not cinema size screen. The film is stretched to the newspaper size. (we are talking still lenses here, remember)
So when you design still lenses you have more slag then the movie lenses.

Michael Hastings
03-21-2007, 10:17 AM
Erik:

Have you been working with RED on the mount - i.e. will you have by NAB or shortly thereafter the actual physical mount to the RED. If not any idea how long that will take. Also will you be pulling power from the B4 connector on the RED or where will you get it.




We will have done more testing by NAB... Which is when a (big) announcement will be made... Don't mean to be elusive. We want to do some more testing and evaluation before we announce whether we have a great product or a really great product; and at least be able to offer an initial indication as to which lenses we will be recomending, and possibly more importantly, recomending against.

Andrew M.
03-21-2007, 10:19 AM
It's true that posters may be shot on larger film. But 266 pixels per inch is considered a minimum for magazine photos and of course the other elements are typically 600 to 1200 dpi and photo quality prints from even very cheap printers are much higher res. Consider that the mysterium image blown up to just 60 inches is only 75 pixels per inch - the difference is the likely viewing distance.

My sort of intuitive point here is to say that both SLR and cine people have many years of shooting to the same medium - 35mm film - and regardless of the direction of the frame and frame size - pros have always wanted/insisted on getting the most they can from that film - and are willing to pay for it. I think it is generally agreed that 2K clearly isn't as sharp as film and 4K is probably where you need to be to be comparable with film.

I would suggest to you that the price difference between a Canon EF 135mm f/2.0L at $1000 each compared to a Zeiss Ultra prime T1.9 135mm at $10,000 each has more to do with the economies of scale in making tens of thousands of the Canon lens as opposed to tens or maybe a few hundred of the Zeiss Ultra Prime pl mount lens, than it does with the optical quality. Again, there is almost certainly a little bit of improvement with the Zeiss based on slightly better design, components, and stringent quality control, but I would suggest that the difference in quality is not on the order of the difference in price, and in fact is fairly small.
Jim promised to demystify the lenses once the RED is out and RED ZOOM and RED primes are in. I hope that he and his people are doing homework on this right now.
Manufactures will do a minimum to make customer happy, so I agree the Zeiss you pay for the experience and name the first, economy of scale second.
Lenses for the special use are much much better then what we see for cine or HD lenses.
But still photography lenses or cine lenses will not be manufactured much above the precision that the customer needs it for. Still photography has economy of scale so it will be probably the best bang for the buck. Waiting for the RED lenses will probably open up the new revolution again in this field.
Remember, you do want to preserve the investment in the lenses once Misterium will be going 24MP or 8K so I hope the RED lenses will be manufactured with the future in mind and the precision that will go beyond the 12MP 4K sensor. Going in to 24MP in S35 size it calls for military specs.

Mike the beginner
03-21-2007, 11:23 AM
On the question of red working with third parties it was indicated by someone at red team that "they are working with thirrd parties" but they have both signed a non-disclosure agreement. Hopefully Birger Engineering will be one of those those parties.

Keep up the great work you guys this is really interesting stuff!

Mike the beginner

Ken Corben
03-21-2007, 11:46 AM
Looks like Mike and Birger may have a brilliant solution with the Canon 10-22mm for underwater apps if the product is broadcast HDTV 1080i that is also economical in scale. This is not trivial - this is a major breakthrough in size and cost for underwater filmmakers!

24P Redcode RAW Underwater:
I would also speculate that the educated guesses are spot on regarding cost to benefit of Zeiss v Canon for underwater apps. I am skeptical that 2K and 4K theatrical projection of underwater images with the Canon lens will compare to the Zeiss Prime to a DP's eye. That said, will the audience really care? I think not.

The speed "might" be an issue for the Canon at night or in caves etc?

Perhaps a moot point for many given the price difference. The proof will be in the testing, heh Mike?

Andrew M.
03-21-2007, 12:06 PM
If anybody wants the test picture from 10-22 Canaon send me the private message with your e-mail address and I will e-mail it back to you.
Too big to post.
Then look at it on your 40"-60" screen or stretch it on your computer screen to the same virtual size.
(2MP RGB at 10 FL wide screen)

Steven Parker
03-21-2007, 12:43 PM
Hey Bubble gang--

This may be old news for you all but the Digital Cinema Society has posted their Underwater Cinematography Seminar - Vince Pace is one of the speakers.

Go to www.digitalcinemasociety.org

and click on New Streaming Content. There's also a 4K seminar and other fun shooter stuff

Enjoy!

Andrew M.
03-21-2007, 05:11 PM
Mike, here it is. When looking on it at 40-50" virtual screen size it looks very soft.
I would give it 1MP look. Put it on your screen and let me know your impression.
Picture ''wide1' was taken with FL 10 on EF-S, 10-22, F14, 1/500 slightly underexposed
Picture "wide2" was taken with FL 17 on EF-S 17-85, F13, 1/320, slightly overexposed


Canon 20D 8MP CMOS sensor S35 size cropped and saved with the pixel count close to 2MP RGB as a jpg.

Andrew

Mark Thorpe
03-21-2007, 06:23 PM
So can we get some links?

Mark.

Andrew M.
03-21-2007, 06:39 PM
So can we get some links?

Mark.

Sent to your e-mail address...

Check the ski rack at the left and right. You see color fringing and collimation problem, 2-3 pixels wide.
Find the focus problems if you can.
Looks like only 55% of the field is acceptable.

Mark Thorpe
03-21-2007, 10:20 PM
Sent to your e-mail address...
Check the ski rack at the left and right. You see color fringing and collimation problem, 2-3 pixels wide.
Find the focus problems if you can.
Looks like only 55% of the field is acceptable.

OK, Got it. Yeah, I can see the 2 to 3 pixel blurring of the colors you mentioned. I would hazard a guess to say that the subjects face (family member?) is also soft. The fact that she's is wearing a beanie gives rise to shadows etc but it looks kinda soft.

The main thing I did notice is that it looks damn cold, way too cold for this warm weather, tropical island livin', underwater swimmin' British chap.

Cheers,
Mark.

Andrew M.
03-22-2007, 06:14 AM
Mark, you got it right, EF zoom Canon lenses are soft.
I do not have much experience with no zoom lenses from Canaon so I can’t comment.
10-22 is more like 14-22 I wouldn’t open it to 10 even for 8X10 picture size, you will see color fringing and other distortions. And for 1 to 2.35 screen format you need these wide angle panoramic shots.
As to the colors, well it is Canada’s Winter! Just to cool you off out there:-) Snow reflections and trees dead colors, I have some warm colors samples as well, out of these lenses. But good point, have to check it.

Why users do not demand test pattern pictures when they buy lenses?
Especially when you do spend more then $1,000 on it.
I think I will get myself a few good test patterns material and test all before I buy. 1000 and 2000 lines plus something for aberration testing.
When you spend a few $$K on the lenses they should give you individual lenses results TIFF files showing performance of the test patterns for this particular lenses or in minimum general test pattern with the tolerances statement. Otherwise it is like buying black magic.

Below I attached the fragment of the picture located ~85% to the horizontal side of the picture from EF-S 10-22 with the setting of 10. Pixel to pixel mapping of 2MP RGB with 1 to 2.35 screen format. It looks much better at setting of 14 but even then it is far from being useful for 1000 lines resolution.

Michael Hastings
03-22-2007, 08:12 AM
Why would you crop it? The sensor is already almost identical to the RED, not to mention you want the highest res you can get to determine the lens sharpness. The RED images on the website are 4096x2034 3.6 Mb, and your file is 3504x1497 1.6MB. If you keep zooming in on the RED test stills you can see some color fringing even on the folds of the black and white (i.e. no color) polka dot hat, definitely not as much but the only images they have posted are from a $25K Cooke 65mm portrait focal length lens - which should be about the best possible, and from the 300mm - I haven't seen anything from a lens that would even be considered normal much less a wide or extreme wide angle. I'm not saying you're wrong I just don't think we've scientifically proved anything here. You need to grab a raw frame from the 10-22 and for an actual comparison of EF lens quality from an L series 50 or 85mm lens shot on both a 20D and EOS-1Ds Mark II full frame camera as well to get a real indication of the lens capability.

Canon USA Price : $ 1,399.95 Normal EF 50mm f/1.2L USM Autofocus Lens
Canon USA Price : $ 1,789.95 Telephoto EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM Autofocus Lens

These lenses would give you an overall better comparison of the expected quality of L series Canon lenses.

Any Superwide lens (remember the 10mm is 107 degrees - almost absurdly wide) is going to have some of those issues on the edges - and is to be expected even more so in an $700 SuperWide. The issue will be if the extra angle of view is worth the trade off over the 14mm L series listed below.

The next best option for a wide angle would be the L series 14mm

Canon USA Price : $ 1,800.00 Super Wide Angle EF 14mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens

You would expect this one to be significantly better quality and it would be the alternative for underwater shooting - However it is about 90 degrees instead of 107 - still very wide - quite close to the old standard 15mm Nikonos.

The other lens I will be evaluating when the time comes is the 1,699.95 L series Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS $ 1,699.95
It is an L series with image stabilization.

The test I would really like to see would be between the Canon L Series 14mm and one of the Zeiss Ultra Prime 14s to see how much more you get for the extra $13,000.

The point of using Canon lenses is not to get the absolute cheapest they make - it is to get the best that they make - which are still about a tenth of the equivalent Zeiss or Cooke lenses - and in the telephoto side also include image stabilization which the Cine lenses don't have.

However, with that said - I think even some of the less expensive lenses may work well for those primarily looking to output 1080P high def. I personally want to shoot all of my underwater and nature footage at 4K, so will buy the L series as since I come from the broadcast video world where a cheap lens is $6K the L series actually seem cheap to me.



Mike, here it is. When looking on it at 40-50" virtual screen size it looks very soft.
I would give it 1MP look. Put it on your screen and let me know your impression.
Picture ''wide1' was taken with FL 10 on EF-S, 10-22, F14, 1/500 slightly underexposed
Picture "wide2" was taken with FL 17 on EF-S 17-85, F13, 1/320, slightly overexposed


Canon 20D 8MP CMOS sensor S35 size cropped and saved with the pixel count close to 2MP RGB as a jpg.

Andrew

Erik Widding
03-22-2007, 08:41 AM
Have you been working with RED on the mount - i.e. will you have by NAB or shortly thereafter the actual physical mount to the RED. If not any idea how long that will take. Also will you be pulling power from the B4 connector on the RED or where will you get it.

Answers to these questions and more, will be available on the first day of NAB... As for the question of timeline, all I can say until NAB - I expect you won't be disappointed with the schedule.

Michael Hastings
03-22-2007, 09:07 AM
Check out some of the DSC test charts - they are in Canada - should be able to google them. Or bring your camera to NAB[QUOTE=Andrew;21221]

I think I will get myself a few good test patterns material and test all before I buy. 1000 and 2000 lines plus something for aberration testing.
When you spend a few $$K on the lenses they should give you individual lenses results TIFF files showing performance of the test patterns for this particular lenses or in minimum general test pattern with the tolerances statement. Otherwise it is like buying black magic.

Michael Hastings
03-22-2007, 09:08 AM
Check out some of the DSC test charts - they are in Canada - should be able to google them. Or bring your camera to NAB




I think I will get myself a few good test patterns material and test all before I buy. 1000 and 2000 lines plus something for aberration testing.
When you spend a few $$K on the lenses they should give you individual lenses results TIFF files showing performance of the test patterns for this particular lenses or in minimum general test pattern with the tolerances statement. Otherwise it is like buying black magic.

Michael Hastings
03-22-2007, 09:09 AM
Thanks, Erik I look forward to seeing you.

Answers to these questions and more, will be available on the first day of NAB... As for the question of timeline, all I can say until NAB - I expect you won't be disappointed with the schedule.

Andrew M.
03-22-2007, 09:45 AM
Check out some of the DSC test charts - they are in Canada - should be able to google them. Or bring your camera to NAB

Thanks! Mike. I will get some test charts. I also want to test Misterium on these charts if it really pulls 2000 lines with REDCODE RAW.
As to cropping, remember 20D Canon sensor is 3:4 ratio, so you have to crop it to get 1 to 2.35 ratio. I did crop only top and bottom. Sides I didn’t touch.
Also 8MP Canon CMOS is delivering about 2.5MP RGB so after cropping for 2.35 screen ratio it will give you about 1.85MP RGB so it is almost as much pixels as you have on the HDTV 1080p screen.

Also I did check my lenses shooting Canon RAW, I see the same distortions.
I think comparing L with some cine lenses will be worth to do it.
I do not have any experience with L and I wanted to get some zoom lenses though.
Remember that we need something about FL10 since on S35 the neutral FL there is only FL28. On full size 35 (135) the neutral FL is 50.
When shooting wide screen 1 to 2.35 or 1 to 2.4 it is so good to have FL10. Gives you smooth panoramic picture. If I can’t find good zoom near 10 I will buy some good prime 8 or 10 and buy RED 18-85. As to FL 100 and up something bit sharper then Canon will be great.

Ken Corben
03-22-2007, 11:14 AM
Any clever ideas for ND filtration in the housing?

Figure ASA 320 at surface to 10 feet in Fiji daylight is gonna be near or above F22?

Issues are screw on filter vignetting on the wide primes?
Interchangeability in the housing (on/off)?

Michael Hastings
03-22-2007, 12:49 PM
I'm not sure I understand why you are using RGB numbers.

I think for absolute best results in abovewater shooting you are going to be better off with the Canon L type 14mm or you are going to have to bite the bullet and buy one those ultra primes.

Underwater, even if the EF-S is a little softer than the 14mm we may be better off with the wider angle because you are shooting through less water.



Thanks! Mike. I will get some test charts. I also want to test Misterium on these charts if it really pulls 2000 lines with REDCODE RAW.
As to cropping, remember 20D Canon sensor is 3:4 ratio, so you have to crop it to get 1 to 2.35 ratio. I did crop only top and bottom. Sides I didn’t touch.
Also 8MP Canon CMOS is delivering about 2.5MP RGB so after cropping for 2.35 screen ratio it will give you about 1.85MP RGB so it is almost as much pixels as you have on the HDTV 1080p screen.

Also I did check my lenses shooting Canon RAW, I see the same distortions.
I think comparing L with some cine lenses will be worth to do it.
I do not have any experience with L and I wanted to get some zoom lenses though.
Remember that we need something about FL10 since on S35 the neutral FL there is only FL28. On full size 35 (135) the neutral FL is 50.
When shooting wide screen 1 to 2.35 or 1 to 2.4 it is so good to have FL10. Gives you smooth panoramic picture. If I can’t find good zoom near 10 I will buy some good prime 8 or 10 and buy RED 18-85. As to FL 100 and up something bit sharper then Canon will be great.

Andrew M.
03-22-2007, 02:01 PM
I did do a lot of reading today.
Looks like we have to go FL 8 to 12 for 2.35 screen ratio and 14 – 16 for 16:9
This is as far as open views, no inside the small limited spaces.
If you do want nice panoramic views where wide screen is in it’s best.
Under the water wider you go less water you have, except the caves long shots where crystal clear water is not the problem as far as visibility is concern.

Looks like good primes 8 to 10 FL are $100 to $300 a day so I rent before I buy and test it.
I use RGB to make sure that we are talking 3 pixels here since 8MP Canon someone may mix up with actual 8M pixels on the screen.

Michael Hastings
03-22-2007, 03:12 PM
No.

All out of clever ideas...

batteries running low....

Just kidding.

Are you talking the cine wides? On the Canon EF-S it shouldn't be too much of a problem since it is 77mm and if necessary to avoid vignetting you can easily step up to an 82 or even bigger. The 14 says it uses a gelatin filter - I think that means it goes in at the back of the lens.


Any clever ideas for ND filtration in the housing?

Figure ASA 320 at surface to 10 feet in Fiji daylight is gonna be near or above F22?

Issues are screw on filter vignetting on the wide primes?
Interchangeability in the housing (on/off)?

Mark Thorpe
03-22-2007, 09:51 PM
Hey guys,
Going off topic slightly here. I've been busy putting some work in on a web site with some friends. We did have a deal with a web designer who turned out to be a bit of a dick to say the least so we are pretty much building it ourselves. That said, and also seeing as I am looking to do something similar with RED footage as an ongoing archive I'd like to get some feedback on the layout idea thus far on my 4:3 SD archives located at:

http://oceanstockimages.com/store/c-16-stock-video-footage.aspx

Yeah, a bit late in the day to put this standard format out there but this thing should have been online about 9 months ago. I've taken, along with my collaborators, a crash course in html and web building to get as far as we have thus far, and had time to go out filming everyday, and had time to create custom DVD's on a daily basis etc etc. Busy few months but should be slowing down soon as the season drops off here in Palau for a while.

Anyway, if any of you have any critique on the delivery thus far of the footage, I know we gotta work a bit on the layout and thats all in the balance at the mo, I'd appreciate it.

Planning a 6 week trip to Indonesia and Philippines in the coming weeks to get my fix of Macro filming. Until then I guess I'm gonna have to hang out with critters like the one below for the time being, such a hard life:

http://www.4koceanstock.com/Images/Mantas.jpg

Cheers,
Mark.

Ken Corben
03-23-2007, 02:42 AM
Mike,

What are you thinking for camera power in housing in lieu of bricks?

I saw Ditier's simple slim line battery packs for his camera in RSA. Not pretty to look at but very functional - simply slid in with velcro to interior housing wall.

Of concern will be the charge time, run time and cycle life?

Phil Becque
03-23-2007, 03:06 AM
Hey guys,
Going off topic slightly here. I've been busy putting some work in on a web site with some friends. We did have a deal with a web designer who turned out to be a bit of a dick to say the least so we are pretty much building it ourselves. That said, and also seeing as I am looking to do something similar with RED footage as an ongoing archive I'd like to get some feedback on the layout idea thus far on my 4:3 SD archives located at:

http://oceanstockimages.com/store/c-16-stock-video-footage.aspx

Yeah, a bit late in the day to put this standard format out there but this thing should have been online about 9 months ago. I've taken, along with my collaborators, a crash course in html and web building to get as far as we have thus far, and had time to go out filming everyday, and had time to create custom DVD's on a daily basis etc etc. Busy few months but should be slowing down soon as the season drops off here in Palau for a while.

Anyway, if any of you have any critique on the delivery thus far of the footage, I know we gotta work a bit on the layout and thats all in the balance at the mo, I'd appreciate it.

Planning a 6 week trip to Indonesia and Philippines in the coming weeks to get my fix of Macro filming. Until then I guess I'm gonna have to hang out with critters like the one below for the time being, such a hard life:

http://www.4koceanstock.com/Images/Mantas.jpg

Cheers,
Mark.

I've just given it a quick try and I like the direct approach (as they say). It's clear what the site is doing and nice not to have to wade through pages of crap to get to what you have on the front page. Keep it that way.

When I'm looking for stock footage which I do several times a year, I want to easily locate a likely good sequence, so large thumb nails are good and play it back quickly which your site seems to do well.

I guess when you have your HD stuff you might want to have one side of the page SD and the other side HD - I'd have them side by side rather than seperate pages. Because that way you get to see all the thumb nails - even if you only have SD or HD in mind.

All the best, Phil

Ken Corben
03-23-2007, 04:27 AM
Mark,

Six weeks on the road filming HDV?

No regular internet access - you'll be missed on this thread and remissed you're not shooting with your RED:bleh:

Michael Hastings
03-23-2007, 10:44 AM
Probably just packs consisting of subC NimH at about 4.2 AH or D size at about 10AH. Just basically 2 stacks of 6 cells shrinkwrapped together for 14.4Volts either 60 watt/hrs or 140 watt/hrs. Configuration and size will depend on the room we have in the housing. Price about $150 for the smaller pack $300-350 for larger. Charger about $120.



Mike,

What are you thinking for camera power in housing in lieu of bricks?

I saw Ditier's simple slim line battery packs for his camera in RSA. Not pretty to look at but very functional - simply slid in with velcro to interior housing wall.

Of concern will be the charge time, run time and cycle life?

Michael Hastings
03-23-2007, 10:54 AM
I found some more info and reviews on EF-S 10-22:

From one review: "In a recent meeting with Canon, it was brought to my attention that the 10-22 EF-S actually uses all L-series glass. Canon does not want to give the L moniker to any lens that isn't full-frame, so the 10-22 is labelled an EF series lens, but optically, Canon considers it L-quality. The "L" classification does not automatically mean "perfect, flawless lens," but the superior L-series glass does go a long way to explaining the quality of this excellent lens."

From another reviewer: "Is the lens any good? Absolutely. "L" quality? Absolutely. As a pro for 41 years, and teethed on Leitz and Zeiss optics, I have pretty high standards when it comes to optics, and use a lot of Leica lenses on my Canon digitals, and the 10-22 surpassed my expectations. I can recommend the lens comfortably." Dennis Harnden

Re: the chroma blurring. While the chroma shift is not good, apparently there is software that corrects the shift automatically as it is pretty easy for software to discern and is therefore sort of a lossless correction. In fact the software has presets for different lenses, including the EF-S 10-22, and on digital stills can read the EXIF data to tell what aperture and further tweak the correction. The same software can also correct for barrel distortion as well.

Although I don't know if we have the same thing yet on the video side, it seems that plug ins to aftereffects, final cut pro, etc. wouldn't be that hard - it would just be applying it to multiple frames.





OK, Got it. Yeah, I can see the 2 to 3 pixel blurring of the colors you mentioned.


Cheers,
Mark.

Mark Thorpe
03-23-2007, 03:28 PM
Mark,

Six weeks on the road filming HDV?

No regular internet access - you'll be missed on this thread and remissed you're not shooting with your RED:bleh:

Sharkguy: Yeah, HDV even needs love man....bummed it won't be RED but hey there is always next year. The season drops off here big time in mid-May so just to chill for a while, change of scenery etc I'm going to Lembeh Straits to get some Macro shots of hopefully, Rhinopias, Frogfish, Nudibranchs, Mimic Octopus, Pygmy Seahorse, Ribbon Eels and all the other weird and wonderful stuff. I'm actually starting to film almost nightly here the macro Macro in Palau too as I'm planning to do a short film for Antibes this year, shortened versions will also be submitted to various film festivals in the U.S too.

When all is said and done and for the immediate future there will be production companies looking for content to compliment their productions. Not everyone has a massive budget obviously so with the stock I have thus far in DV, HDV and eventually RED I think I will have a nice product to be able to cater to most budgets and requirements.

Tranquil Light: Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate that. We still have to nail the final layout format but I take your comments very graciously, thanks.

Regards,
Mark.

Mark Thorpe
03-23-2007, 03:31 PM
Hey Guys,
Been asked by a big prod / broadcast concern to post some clips of the bait ball I've been filming on my stock pages so that should be done by the days end. I'll send the link so you can take a 'gander' at what I've been talking about these past few days.

Mark.

chuck colburn
03-23-2007, 03:31 PM
http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/1022.htm

Steve Gibby
03-23-2007, 04:17 PM
Mark,

Three key elements of any good web site:

1) It should be aesthetically pleasing
2) It should navigate easily
3) It should be a "sticky" site, in other words hold users (unique visitors) on-site for as long as possible.

The images we deal with are inherently pleasing. I'm a fan of dark backgrounds for web pages that display photos and video. Part of being aesthetically pleasing is to have some motion somewhere on the pages, so it isn't a "dead" site. You can do this with a small Flash movie somewhere on your page template, with the rest of the page template being HTML. An alernative to put motion on a page would be an animated GIF. Navigation should be intuitive, with buttons, rollovers. etc. Pages shouldn't be too cluttered. You make a site sticky by incorporating rich media and community features: video clips, blog, chat rooms, contests, etc.

I know you're pressed for time and with a small development team in getting your site up, but I've outlined the basics to keep in mind when building a site. Your site is your business card, and first impreessions are lasting impressions...

Good luck...and have a good trip!

Ken Corben
03-23-2007, 06:00 PM
Mike,

Battery solution looks/sounds similar to what I saw in the field and a good solution. Not to keen on taking brick batteries underwater (weight/cost/size/etc).

On the RED external monitor solution - what do you think the power solution will be? Independent or draws off the camera? Will it be aluminum and have auto power on/off?

Mark Thorpe
03-23-2007, 09:09 PM
Hey guys,
The Baitball clips are up.

http://oceanstockimages.com/store/c-16-stock-video-footage.aspx?pagenum=1

The yawning Turtle is also up there. Remember I'm peddling against, at times, a good current here. Still, not too wobbly.

Cheers,
Mark.

Michael Hastings
03-23-2007, 09:20 PM
I think power is better drawn from the camera since it is in the cable anyway.

Maybe Aluminum although I like Delrin too - less corrosion issues, machines better than anything, and strong enough for this size housing. Delrin's about 5 times the cost of aluminum but doesn't need to be hardcoated so smaller items work out well in Delrin.


Mike,

Battery solution looks/sounds similar to what I saw in the field and a good solution. Not to keen on taking brick batteries underwater (weight/cost/size/etc).

On the RED external monitor solution - what do you think the power solution will be? Independent or draws off the camera? Will it be aluminum and have auto power on/off?

Mark Thorpe
03-23-2007, 09:40 PM
Hi Mike,
What kind of figure we talking for independant monitor housing? I was quoted over 5 (five) figures for that by another manufacturer!! Same for an underslung casing I was intending to put an FS100 in (I was originally planning to go HVX200 for the DVCProHD codec instead of the Sony Z1).

Cheers,
Mark.

Ken Corben
03-23-2007, 09:55 PM
Mark,

As we say in Hollywood - SCHWING! Fantastic behavior footage. I look forward to seeing it shot with your RED camera. Maybe with Mike's help designing the housing, 10% luck and 90% o-ring we'll get this in 3-D next year?

Sharky

PS- Mike the Delrin solution sounds excellent also want to add a video out port and a polecam attach point to the housing.

Mark Thorpe
03-24-2007, 12:09 AM
Sharky,
This would look so damned cool in 3D as well as a lot of other stuff here in Palau, you know, you've been here before so I don't need to go into it. Blue Corner's been rockin' this year. I honestly came face to face with a dogtooth Tuna bigger than the grey reef sharks, ...kin' awesome.

All good stuff. Trip won't start until the beginning of June so will be shooting a lot of macro here in Palau out on the shallow reefs in front of the Palau Pacific Resort. Should be fun.

Cheers,
Mark.

Andrew M.
03-24-2007, 06:33 AM
Shoot from 8R lenses 100deg FOV, 2.4:1 screen format.
No color fringing, no chromatic aberrations no curved verticals or horizontals,
correct perspective, hmmm ……………………. US$30,000.00

Mark Thorpe
03-24-2007, 04:18 PM
Shot with a Fathoms Engineering SWP44
117 degree AOV- Price: $4,400
Shot from a distance of 5ft, animal diameter approx: 10ft wingspan.

http://www.4koceanstock/Images/Mantas.jpg

Mark.

Mark Thorpe
03-24-2007, 04:29 PM
http://www.4koceanstock.com/Images/Mantas.jpg

I meant to include this......:whistling:

Andrew M.
03-25-2007, 06:51 AM
Shot with a Fathoms Engineering SWP44
117 degree AOV- Price: $4,400
Shot from a distance of 5ft, animal diameter approx: 10ft wingspan.

http://www.4koceanstock/Images/Mantas.jpg

Mark.

This is getting sexy!!
Mark, do you have SWP44 or you do rent?
Also what lenses did you use behind for this shot?

Great shot!!

Michael Hastings
03-25-2007, 08:20 AM
In post #144 I put some prices. I quoted $1000-1500 which would be a delrin or polypro case. Add about 60% for aluminum. Connectors might be included in that number but depending on type could add 200-300.

Delrin is actually much more expensive than aluminum - but it machines better and no corrosion, no anodizing needed etc. I just have to do the calculations to see if depth capability is practical without beefing it up too much.


Hi Mike,
What kind of figure we talking for independant monitor housing? I was quoted over 5 (five) figures for that by another manufacturer!! Same for an underslung casing I was intending to put an FS100 in (I was originally planning to go HVX200 for the DVCProHD codec instead of the Sony Z1).

Cheers,
Mark.

Mark Thorpe
03-25-2007, 03:53 PM
Hi Andrew,
I own the SWP44. I moved to HDV in the middle of last year having terminated my love affair with my trusted old Sony VX1000. I went with the Z1, and all the whistles and bells from Gates and Fathom Engineering, meaning the SWP44. For normal everyday use its a huge chunk of glass to carry around but here in Palau I think its worth it. Here we have wrecks, sharks everywhere, mantas and also lakes filled with stingless jellyfish etc, all environments and animals which when filmed with this monster lens really translate well on the screen. For the predators that does of course mean that I have to be right there in their faces to get the shots but thats the fun of this job.

Check out the SWP44 in the attached file. I took some snaps against the Titanium R for scale. The lens is currently having some down time as I'm concentrating on macro stuff at the moment seeing as we have a quiet week.

The lens itself fits directly on to the camera housing and marries up directly with the camera lens, no additional lenses required. The SWP44 fits with a bayonet mount to the housing and has dual O'rings for the seal. It has been designed to work through the whole telephoto range of the camera and allows me to film at full telephoto at a distance of 12 inches from the front of the lens when doing so. I will post a result image of that scenario later.

Check it out. She's a beauty.

Cheers,
Mark.

http://www.4koceanstock.com/Images/SWP44-Montage.jpg

Hey AquaVideoRed,
Thanks for the pricing, I did see that sorry. Much better news on the cash front on your side of the fence I gotta say. Keep us all posted on the developments etc.

Michael Hastings
03-26-2007, 07:21 AM
The thing to remember about the SWP44 is that it is a conversion lens, designed to make a lens that is fix mounted to a camera like the Z1 wider. It doesn't have much application with RED since RED uses interchangeable lenses and you would just start with as wide angle as you want. Even if you went with an Ivanoff corrector (the SWP44 is essentially a wide angle converter with a more modern version of the Ivanoff) it could be much smaller and simpler given the smaller size of the lenses. It is unlikely even an Ivanoff is going to make sense unless somebody just comes up with the perfect lens, since the dome is more flexible in terms of using different lenses and is less costly. In other words if RED comes up with a $5K version of the Zeiss 8mm ($25K) and everybody standardizes on it then it might make sense to design that type of corrector.



I went with the Z1, and all the whistles and bells from Gates and Fathom Engineering, meaning the SWP44. For normal everyday use its a huge chunk of glass to carry around

The lens itself fits directly on to the camera housing and marries up directly with the camera lens, no additional lenses required. The SWP44 fits with a bayonet mount to the housing and has dual O'rings for the seal.
Cheers,
Mark.

Andrew M.
03-26-2007, 07:45 AM
Guys, Thanks! a lot for the explanation
What I would do without this Underwater Bubble Blowin' Users Group thread
I am monitoring this thread the minute Mark created it.

BTW I am trying to get this program to facilitate the lenses and camera testing. (I am loosing it, too much data)
http://www.imatest.com/docs/tour.html

$500 investment in this program is nothing in comparison to the price of good lenses and there is a lot of &#!% out there when lenses and camera sensors are concern.

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF.html

Andrew

Mike the beginner
03-26-2007, 08:12 AM
Mark if we compare the proposed red zoom at $9,500 compared to say a cooks or similar, is the difference not about one third of the price.

That would make the 8mm arri type wide angle come in around $10,000 if red made it, given the $30,000 price of the arri 8mm.

I would certainly buy a red 8mm if it came in at $5,000. I just wish red had decided to make their zoom start at 14mm rather than 18mm:sad:


Maybe reds intention is to provide a mediem long and short zoom eventually. imagine a cine 8mm -20mm zoom wow that would be cool with no lens mount changes necessary, just stick to pl mount. Somehow i reckon the primes are next though.

Mike the beginner

David Nardini
03-26-2007, 09:33 AM
... The thing to remember about the SWP44 is that it is a conversion lens, designed to make a lens that is fix mounted to a camera like the Z1 wider ...

... and optimised / designed to work for the Z1 zoom range (ie: from wide to close up), hence why it is much more complex that a conventional port.


... It is unlikely even an Ivanoff is going to make sense unless somebody just comes up with the perfect lens, since the dome is more flexible in terms of using different lenses and is less costly ...

For FOV up to 90 degrees diagonal, an Ivanoff port may be a good solution for primes, but very unlikely to work consistently with zoom lenses, for the whole range. It may work for lenses that do not change in size (as you zoom), but I've never tried this ???

For FOV greater than 90 degrees diagonal a dome port is most practical (for both primes and zooms). However, the position of the dome centre of curvature is critical relative to lens position (entrance pupil). The wider the FOV, the greater the challenge in keeping edge definition looking good. Larger domes help (internal reflections risk increase) ...

Compromises eh !!!

Michael Hastings
03-26-2007, 10:54 AM
The thing I like is that the key component - the 4K RED is not a compromise. So I think with something like the Birger and a 10-22 we will have really good quality - and if something better comes along we can upgrade and improve but we won't need to improve the camera - we are making a leap to a level that should be good for a while - unlike the DV, to 16:9, to HDV incremental jumps we have had to make in the last 5 years or so which are costly at every step.


...
Compromises eh !!!

David Nardini
03-26-2007, 12:10 PM
... 4K RED + the Birger + Canon 10-22 we will have really good quality ...

agreed ! ... certainly a very good start :biggrin:

Dear Jim & RED Team, now about the RED 8-24mm/f2.8 lens ... :unsure:

Mark Thorpe
03-26-2007, 04:00 PM
AquaVideoRed206 - The thing to remember about the SWP44 is that it is a conversion lens, designed to make a lens that is fix mounted to a camera like the Z1 wider. It doesn't have much application with RED since RED uses interchangeable lenses and you would just start with as wide angle as you want.

Granted, and a valid point but this thread I believe is leaning very strongly towards finding an economical solution, in part, to the wide end of RED underwater. If by adapting any RED housing to using a 67 degree lens that could potentially work with the SWP44 therefore giving a 117 degree AOV I believe we would be saving tens of thousands of dollars in glass. SWP44 gives 117 degrees for less than $5k. How much was that 8R that gives 100 degrees? $30k? I'm only looking for a way that will allow use of the SWP, establishing shots would be amazing given that AOV. Picture the camera set on a frame pointing vertically 90 degrees up. Place that in amongst the rocks at Cocos Island and back off. Let the Hammerheads swarm all over it with no bubbles to scare them.


Mike the Beginner - Maybe reds intention is to provide a mediem long and short zoom eventually. imagine a cine 8mm -20mm zoom wow that would be cool with no lens mount changes necessary, just stick to pl mount. Somehow i reckon the primes are next though.

We can only speculate about the way Jim takes the glass issues and how he addresses that. We've seen thus far that he is very methodical in his attack strategy, over 1400 minds are willing his every move. That said I'm sure he monitors every thread in the Forum and is making notes on potential future product releases. I'm sure if producing a super wide lens could be a viable business move and something deemed necessary then he'd go for it. Ohh, and Jim if you do please make it an 8-24mm f2.8 - right on David. There are many shooters here on the board as a whole who are looking at natural history applications and obviously super wide is an absolute must.

As for the price. Who knows? Maybe 8 to 10k.......but not much more eh Jim?


AquaVideoRed206...we are making a leap to a level that should be good for a while - unlike the DV, to 16:9, to HDV incremental jumps we have had to make in the last 5 years or so which are costly at every step.

Thank God for that.......

Cheers,
Mark.

Ken Corben
03-26-2007, 07:29 PM
Imagine a PL mount cine style RED 10-24mm/f2.8 lens for $10K? Schwing! This lens would end all speculation and debate on this thread.

Until that day over the rainbow - thank goodness for Mike Hastings and Birger for the possible economical solutions they are working on. Evin's sticky about Nikon glass as the workhorse for Arri cine lenses is very encouraging.

I will need to see the lens tests personally both projected and on a monitor to see the truth before I decide and invest since broadcast 1080i HDTV is not the end all for my projects.

March of the Penguins - was this entirely shot in S35 for theatrical release? I think not. Classic French production - the food and wine were 5 star :-)

Shooting format: Super 16 mm, plus DV for underwater sequences.
Compelling, emotionally involving struggle of the photogenic birds against the elements, shot against gorgeous, pristine icescapes in a rarely seen part of the world. Enormous intimacy of the footage, achieved with no noticeable intrusion by the filmmakers. Plus, U.S. version, featuring a new narration and score, has become the most successful nature doc in box office history and drawn virtually unanimous critical raves.
Memorable scenes: Penguin parents perform a delicate ritual to transfer a fragile egg from the care of one to the other. The birds huddle together to withstand a brutal storm. The Southern Lights ricochet across the Antarctic sky. Penguin mothers, job accomplished, leave their toddling young behind to fend for themselves as they return to the sea to start the cycle over.
On making the film: To Jacquet, who grew up in the Swiss Alps and relishes sub-zero climes, the cold was not a hardship, but dealing with winds that raged at 80-120 mph certainly was. "The wind made everything difficult. It made the camera vibrate," says Jacquet, who used computer graphics to stabilize the image (the only special effect in the film).
Filming spanned 13 months in the severe climate -- but unlike the penguins, the four-man crew dined well, thanks to the proximity of the French Polar Institute, which had its own pastry chef and stores of red wine, beef and, of course, frozen food. "The institute was 20 minutes' walk from the breeding grounds. Without it, we couldn't have made the film," says Jacquet.
Still, the film had its own survival drama, when financier Bonne Pioche, the only willing investor, ran out of funds. Quick action at Cannes by Paris-based sales company Wild Bunch, which sold 50 territories in a 24-hour span, "saved the life of the film and the production company," says Jacquet. "It's very interesting to think about that now," he reflects.
Throughout the filming, the crew maintained a distance of at least 10 meters from the birds, using long lenses for close-ups and never interfering with the penguins' tenuous grip on survival. Operating under such extreme conditions makes you aware that "everything is precious. Every gesture counts," reflects Jacquet.

Mark Thorpe
03-26-2007, 09:06 PM
Sharkguy - Imagine a PL mount cine style RED 10-24mm/f2.8 lens for $10K? Schwing! This lens would end all speculation and debate on this thread.

Schaaawing! Ain't that the truth......but until that happens let's just imagine that perfect world where the water is warm, the animals are behaving, the mating whalesharks are cavorting just so and Angelina is about to play with your low pressure inflater..........:wink: Damn, going by the looks of my Avatar I guess Angelina mixed up the hoses.

Cheers,
Mark.

Michael Hastings
03-26-2007, 09:52 PM
I think this is all about value. I'm not trying to knock the SWP44 but I think you need to be practical about what it is. It is a very low volume manufactured item - and therefore fairly expensive for what it is - water contact wide converter designed to get the most you can out of the cheap lens on low end, prosumer cameras like the Z1, that don't have access to the interchangeable, much higher quality lenses readily available for the higher end cameras.

I'm not knocking the Z1 either, we all know if makes pretty darn good pictures for the price (and the V1 is even nicer). And I'm also on record that the Varicams and HDCAMs are questionable as to the picture quality gain relative to the huge price jump. I'm pretty friendly with several of the product managers at Panasonic, and for the past 4 years I told them flatly that I wasn't going to by a Varicam or anything else like it until they put a firewire port on it - because it was bad enough to be asked to pay 50 grand for a 1 megapixel camera but it was an insult to my intelligence to make me step backward into the tape deck world to be able to get it into my edit system. Well they finally introduced one with the firewire port last NAB but it was too late I had already been to the RED booth.

My point is that the SWP44 my be useful if you already own it and it would work with something like the RED zoom (I doubt it will as I think the front element is going to be too big). But even there you are talking $9500 for the RED zoom and $4400 for the SWP44 - hardly an economical choice. And that's assuming that the SWP44 is optically as sharp - remember it was designed to be used with the Z1 which is only operating at that 1 megapixel or so resolution level. The SWP44 may hold up - but until proven through actual testing with real high resolution lenses and sensors - one would expect it to perform more at the level of the lenses for which it was designed.

Given that the SWP44 is designed for a lens with a 72mm front end, and as i've said it seems that most of the Cine glass is going to be larger, what lens would you be thinking of using it with? It might work with a Canon or Nikon still lens in that 17 - 20 mm range but what would be the point if you could just use the 10-22 zoom with no conversion.

The 8R was 20K Euro list price but that would be much wider than either of these solutions. I think a 10 or 12mm would 14-15K.

BTW in other thread Evin Grant, who has been doing the still camera lens tests pointed out that the higher end still lens were pretty equivalent to the Cine lenses in sharpness, the biggest difference was in the "breathing" (a slight zooming effect) when you shift focus. That is applicable more in the theatrical movie shooting where you often shift focus from one person to another and it would be a little annoying, but that doesn't apply in underwater and probably not much even in abovewater nature shooting.



Granted, and a valid point but this thread I believe is leaning very strongly towards finding an economical solution, in part, to the wide end of RED underwater. If by adapting any RED housing to using a 67 degree lens that could potentially work with the SWP44 therefore giving a 117 degree AOV I believe we would be saving tens of thousands of dollars in glass. SWP44 gives 117 degrees for less than $5k. How much was that 8R that gives 100 degrees? $30k? I'm only looking for a way that will allow use of the SWP, establishing shots would be amazing given that AOV. Picture the camera set on a frame pointing vertically 90 degrees up. Place that in amongst the rocks at Cocos Island and back off. Let the Hammerheads swarm all over it with no bubbles to scare them.



We can only speculate about the way Jim takes the glass issues and how he addresses that. We've seen thus far that he is very methodical in his attack strategy, over 1400 minds are willing his every move. That said I'm sure he monitors every thread in the Forum and is making notes on potential future product releases. I'm sure if producing a super wide lens could be a viable business move and something deemed necessary then he'd go for it. Ohh, and Jim if you do please make it an 8-24mm f2.8 - right on David. There are many shooters here on the board as a whole who are looking at natural history applications and obviously super wide is an absolute must.

As for the price. Who knows? Maybe 8 to 10k.......but not much more eh Jim?



Thank God for that.......

Cheers,
Mark.

Ken Corben
03-26-2007, 11:00 PM
I think the Arri 8R is an amazing lens but yet has specific applications and may not be the standard wide prime for the mysterium sensor underwater. Did anyone notice the speed blurring on the shallow DOF for the tests on the Arri web site?

If the subject matter is big animals underwater then the 35mm equivalent of an 18mm will work just fine. In other words it boils down to the Canon 10-22 solution as an amazing possibility or the Zeiss 10 or 12 depending on tests for a RED Uw system. I do not think any conversion or wide angle adapters will work as a simple/elegant solution for 4K acquisiton (wishful thinking or expensive work around?). Of course there are always exceptions, e.g., 2K?

Imagine this encounter (photo) in 3-D with a RED 4K system projected on an IMAX screen. This is my technical goal as an underwater DP. Again, it is a balance of subject matter and story line compared to technical superiority to meet audience expectations.

Mark Thorpe
03-27-2007, 12:48 AM
Hey Mike,
I am right with you on everything. I think its nice to have an open conversation to look at all aspects of what we are trying to do here. I really do like the SWP44 given what it does with the Z1 setup. I would again obviously love to think this performance could somehow be transitioned economically to become a reality in the RED Arena. If not then I will sell it. There are many underwater forums where very serious amateurs would snap it up, heck David (h2opixels) has even reserved first refusal. Its a nice thing to be sat on an asset that could easily raise 1/3rd of the cash needed for a real nice glass option for RED.

Sharkguy - I think we are whittling down the options here which is a good thing. It will be very nice once the likes of Gibby start to get their cameras and subsequently their housings. Then we'll really be able to start getting a handle on what works and what doesn't. The next couple of months are going to be an amazing ride.

Right there with you on that shot.

Cheers,
Mark.

Michael Hastings
03-27-2007, 09:13 AM
I was looking over the Ultra Prime list and it seems the T2.1 10mm may be the best bang for the buck in real cine lenses at about $20K vs. the T2.8 at $25K. 10mm is still superwide and the extra speed may be valuable as well. The other Ultra Primes are very close to the same price - you only save a grand or so by going to 12mm, 14, 16, etc.

BTW. These lenses are big - the front end of the 10 millimeter is over 6" which means big hole & big dome.

Again, I think the most practical scenario is going to be Canon Still lens (10-22) with Birger mount for most owner operators with the ability to use the Ultraprime 8 or 10 on a rental or purchase basis as the bigger budgets come in.


I think the Arri 8R is an amazing lens but yet has specific applications and may not be the standard wide prime for the mysterium sensor underwater. Did anyone notice the speed blurring on the shallow DOF for the tests on the Arri web site?

If the subject matter is big animals underwater then the 35mm equivalent of an 18mm will work just fine. In other words it boils down to the Canon 10-22 solution as an amazing possibility or the Zeiss 10 or 12 depending on tests for a RED Uw system. I do not think any conversion or wide angle adapters will work as a simple/elegant solution for 4K acquisiton (wishful thinking or expensive work around?). Of course there are always exceptions, e.g., 2K?

Imagine this encounter (photo) in 3-D with a RED 4K system projected on an IMAX screen. This is my technical goal as an underwater DP. Again, it is a balance of subject matter and story line compared to technical superiority to meet audience expectations.

Andrew M.
03-27-2007, 02:59 PM
I agree with you 100%
I see from my calculations the Misterium is 80lines/mm sensor.
Theoretically if you take 5.5 micron photo sites spacing of Misterium, it is 181 l/mm sensor but it will be the best case scenario if photo sites are round and only for luminance and 3X3 and 2X2 comparative luminance deBayer alghoritm.
Most materials are rated for luminance anyway.
1mm/5.5microns = 181.8

So if sensor is 80-180 then we should get 150 l/mm lenses then, minimum, otherwise we can’t really get the best out of Misterium? Also we have to look on MTF since contrast ratio is important when looking just for l/mm specification, some l/mm ratings are just rating it at 10% modulation/contrast ratio.

Since we are working with the same frame size, S35, it is easy to compare sensors/material and lenses.
I still can’t figure out the influence of the .5 to 1mm cover glass over the CMOS sensor, especially when 8-10mm lenses are concern and far end corners hit by light at 45deg angle, could be bit stretched. This cover glass is also Low/High Pass Filter and protects the sensor at the same time.
I have a meeting with Arri on Tuesday so I will get some more news on this one.
See the picture of the high end sensor and cover glass placement.
http://www.dalsa.com/pi/documents/FTF4052M%20product%20sheet.pdf

BTW Master primes are much newer that Ultra Prime except UP 8R
Andrew

Andrew M.
03-27-2007, 04:07 PM
Found something - not much.

Mark Thorpe
04-01-2007, 01:09 AM
Hey Guys,
Been busy so not been around the board for a couple of days. Funny how it seems to become a part of you, weird how one misses the interaction. Well just to keep spirits up I've been back to the baitball and its still surviving although getting smaller by the day now. I guess now that there are not so many survivors the daily count is noticeable.

I'm also in the writing stage as I am now looking to make a short film for the festival circuit this year. The main submission is to Antibes in France at the end of October so I'm going to be doing a short doco on macro shot between Palau, Indonesia (hence the trip) and the Philippines. One month to edit and FedEx to France should be fine. Max duration circa 15 minutes. Shorter versions will then also be sent around to some California based Ocean related festivals etc.

If they get into the finals of any of the California festivals then I guess I'll have to make the trek over and catch up with the B.B.U.G's (Name of this forum Group) and check out that 3D rig you were on about there Ken.

Cheers,
Mark.

http://www.4koceanstock.com/Images/Real-Nice-Clowns.jpg

Ken Corben
04-02-2007, 11:58 AM
Hey Mike and Mark,

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

Andrew M.
04-02-2007, 02:34 PM
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
04-02-2007, 05:32 PM
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
04-02-2007, 10:05 PM
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
04-02-2007, 10:11 PM
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
04-02-2007, 10:22 PM
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
04-02-2007, 10:37 PM
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
04-03-2007, 07:30 AM
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
04-03-2007, 07:34 AM
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
04-03-2007, 08:53 AM
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
04-03-2007, 09:47 AM
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
04-06-2007, 03:18 PM
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
04-06-2007, 04:10 PM
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
04-06-2007, 04:18 PM
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
04-06-2007, 04:37 PM
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
04-06-2007, 04:47 PM
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
04-06-2007, 05:30 PM
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
04-06-2007, 05:53 PM
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
04-06-2007, 10:07 PM
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
04-06-2007, 10:29 PM
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.

Mike the beginner
04-07-2007, 04:49 AM
Mark so far as we know red are ofering different mounts as an option other than their standard PL mount that comes attached to the camera.

We dont know yet until we see the camera at NAB what the changing of the mounts will entail. There has been talk that it will be a flange with so many screws that you remove the original pl mount and replace with the optional one. Truth is it could be different, someone suggested that the original mount might stay on and the optional mount gets fitted on to the existing mount (unlikely but who knows) so that is the position with the mounts.

Others have talked about the need to prevent misalignment issues when changing a mount (Stephen Williams) suggesting that this should really be done with great care and preferably not in an unsuitable environment. That sounds sensible to me. From what we know so far i think it might come doing to how sensible and careful you are to change the mounts in a relatively dust free area that allows you to take your time and have a suitable working area to do the chnge over. As i see it, from what i have read only) changing the mounts is not similar to changing a lens. A change of lens is a straightforward job. In an ideal world having your lenses all made say PL mount would avoid any possible perceived problems that "might" occur when changing mounts.

The birger solution if it works as suggested, might involve the same task as changing the existing PL mount to say a red nikon or canon mount but the only difference is that the birger mount is made by birger. We dont know if Birger mount involves placing the mount on the existing PL mount either, o we have to wait and see whether the PL mount gets removed forst or not in either sitiuation. The b4 mount is far more complex as it involves the use of a lens as well as a mount. Will have to wait and see for that as well.

As i see it the birger offers the greater flexibility to change between lenses as some makes of lenses are made in either say canon mount or say nikon mount. You get to choose. This would mean that your tamron and i think sigma as well have choices of fittings, can be used on the birger mount without the need to change the birger mount. The only time you would need to change the birger mount back to PL mount is if you decided to use a cine lens with PL mount fittings. In my case i could use the birger solution for all my underwater work and my telephoto nature and wildlife footage without ever changing the mounts. That is safe and convienient and a hell of a lot cheaper as well. I have ordered the red zoom and i see situations when i would want to use that zoom. I would have to change the mounts for that. I am kinda hoping i can work something out that avoids me having to change the mounts out on the field. Thats my viewpoint from a beginner....someone else can possibly point out any errors.:innocent:

Mike the beginner

Mark Thorpe
04-07-2007, 05:39 AM
Hey Mike thanks,
My panic attack is over and thanks for the explanations. I do have a pretty good fix on the whole mount thing, I think, but with the lack of info out there, concrete info that is, I guess NAB will set everything straight.

Looking forwards to getting out of this thicket in a few months.

How's bonny Scotland this time of year? My last time there was about 20 years ago walking over the mountains north of Otterburn.

Cheers,
Mark.

Michael Hastings
04-07-2007, 06:38 AM
I think all of the mounts, i.e. Birger and the RED Canon and RED Nikon, replace the PL mount.

Standard for AL is black or goldish hardcoat anodize. You could paint or vinyl coat it from there.

My personal housing will be PVC, I'm quite comfortable with it for anything up to 250 ft. or more and I don't think I will be diving that deep (Yeah I'm a wuss). It gives me a little more size as the special oversize I have is about 3/8 bigger inside, but mainly PVC is just easier to work with and maintain.


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?


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

No, it's only for guys with engine problems that leave me stranded in LAS. I'm just afraid you'll spend all your money on an airplane engine and won't have any left for RED or a housing.

Mike the beginner
04-07-2007, 07:15 AM
I would be interested in the pvc housing you make AquaVideo. Once you get the final price nailed down please let me know. I can evaluate and compare.

Mark Scotland is looking good just now! A wee jaunt up Ben Lomond at this time of year can provide great views, though last year it was thick with snow, exciting camping out in a snow storm though!

Yep NAB will have us all running around like headless chickens:waaa:

Mike the beginner

Ken Corben
04-07-2007, 08:04 AM
Seems we're all guessing along the same lines and the solutions look promising.

1) Birger Canon control mount installed on RED body (alignment test especially if shooting 4K, i.e., using all of the CMOS imaging area.)

2) Canon 10-22mm with Dome Port. Lens control from Birger with Aquavideo housing interface to Birger control for aperture control and stick with manual rings for F stop and zoom if possible (less electronics to go wrong?)

3) Tamron 90mm (canon mount) with flat port extender for front of housing.

4) Standard tripod screw mount on bottom of housing (aluminum housings only?)

5) Light meter attachment on right handle.

Oh man, I smell another price increase anouncement from Aquavideo:clown2:




No, it's only for guys with engine problems that leave me stranded in LAS. I'm just afraid you'll spend all your money on an airplane engine and won't have any left for RED or a housing.

I like your wicked sense of humor. Better to be stranded than to crash and burn I always say... and ya, a rebuilt engine starts at $35K for my plane - but hey it's all relative. The fuel bill for the Oakley corporate jet to NZ and back was more than that.

Mark Thorpe
04-07-2007, 03:44 PM
sharkguy - 4) Standard tripod screw mount on bottom of housing (aluminum housings only?)

In this realm I would prefer something out of the ordinary. I have a tripod mount system for the Gates housing I currently use. What I would like personally to replace this in the future is a simple ball joint on each lower corner of the housing. I would then place an articulated, a la strobe support arm, adjustable 'foot' on each corner allowing adaptation to the most severe of terrain. Also for the added stability needed for larger housings. I find with mine that due to one smallish anchor point for the tripod in relation to the size of the housing I still get quite a bit of movement due to water acting on the larger surfaces of the unit.

My 2c

Mark.

From last night......this in 4k will be astonishing.

http://www.4koceanstock.com/Images/Crocodile-Fish-Eye.jpg

Ken Corben
04-07-2007, 04:02 PM
Mark,

The ball joint solution sounds brilliant! Will you keep us posted on the implimentation? How you secure it with weights or ?

Here's my "holy grail" for RED 3-D underwater rig...

Michael Hastings
04-08-2007, 03:52 AM
A couple of comments:

On the lens controls, once we go electronic for the iris (which we have to) we might as well for the focus (and zoom if available) since it isn't really any more electronics, it is just another couple of switches and/or pots. If the little circuit board fails your kind of screwed anyway whether it is just iris or both iris and focus. In practical terms remember that I'm a video guy so never had to deal much with gears, we've almost always had other ways to get it done so while we can do gears if we have to it isn't the normal day to day thing.

Not sure why we would go with the Tamron rather than a Canon medium tele to keep it a little more standardized. Remember the Planet Earth guys used it because there was an inexpensive PL mount. (the PL converter guy probably chose it for two reasons 1) Like Sigma and others it is designed with a removable mount so it can be used with canon or nikon, so easier to dismantle and do a PL mount and 2) it is really easy to become a direct Tamron dealer to buy lenses wholesale - not so easy to become a Canon dealer.)

The standard tripod mount screw is easy for either PVC or aluminum, but I like the ball arm style idea too if you are going to get serious about macro - it is almost impossible to keep it really steady from a single mount point. That isn't too hard to do with our standard configuration - you can mount the balls at the front and back of the wings, or make a large bottom plate, and it wouldn't be hard to weld small round threaded posts to the PVC housing to screw the ball into (they make balls with a threaded stud on them) or the ball itself to the aluminum housing. On the PVC housing it would only be about a half hour to an hour project but it makes it hard to get the pretty yellow coating on neatly, so it might be a little ugly around the posts.

Do we need a light meter? Don't we get histograms or something on the rear camera screen, plus visual on the LCD? Anyway meter attachment is easy. (but for Ken it is $81 - and yes I agree it is better to be stranded, than lose the engine at 10000 feet.)


Seems we're all guessing along the same lines and the solutions look promising.

1) Birger Canon control mount installed on RED body (alignment test especially if shooting 4K, i.e., using all of the CMOS imaging area.)

2) Canon 10-22mm with Dome Port. Lens control from Birger with Aquavideo housing interface to Birger control for aperture control and stick with manual rings for F stop and zoom if possible (less electronics to go wrong?)

3) Tamron 90mm (canon mount) with flat port extender for front of housing.

4) Standard tripod screw mount on bottom of housing (aluminum housings only?)

5) Light meter attachment on right handle.

Oh man, I smell another price increase anouncement from Aquavideo:clown2:



In this realm I would prefer something out of the ordinary. I have a tripod mount system for the Gates housing I currently use. What I would like personally to replace this in the future is a simple ball joint on each lower corner of the housing. I would then place an articulated, a la strobe support arm, adjustable 'foot' on each corner allowing adaptation to the most severe of terrain. Also for the added stability needed for larger housings. I find with mine that due to one smallish anchor point for the tripod in relation to the size of the housing I still get quite a bit of movement due to water acting on the larger surfaces of the unit.

My 2c

Mark.

Ken Corben
04-08-2007, 08:55 AM
Not sure why we would go with the Tamron rather than a Canon medium tele to keep it a little more standardized. Remember the Planet Earth guys used it because there was an inexpensive PL mount. (the PL converter guy probably chose it for two reasons 1) Like Sigma and others it is designed with a removable mount so it can be used with canon or nikon, so easier to dismantle and do a PL mount and 2) it is really easy to become a direct Tamron dealer to buy lenses wholesale - not so easy to become a Canon dealer.)

Here's an excerpt on why the Tamron lens is better for Macro work:

Interestingly, although the Canon lens appears to be very slightly sharper wide-open, once the lenses are stopped down a little the Tamron seems to have far better contrast, colour and detail. Contrast from the Canon lens doesn't really catch up until F8, which seems to be the sweet spot for that lens, while the Tamron actually seems best at F5.6. At F16 both lenses lose some sharpness due to diffraction although the Tamron still appears slightly sharper.

While these results can't be held as being conclusive, it does appear as if the Tamron is the better lens for macro work. One caveat being of course that lens sharpness is one of many variables for this type of work, and indeed typical macro apertures will be around F16 where both lenses have lost some resolution. At this level most shooters will have enough problems with depth of field and focusing to lose too much sleep over minor differences in lens sharpness.


The complete analysis with sample pictures link:
http://photo.net/equipment/canon/can-tam-macro/


Do we need a light meter? Don't we get histograms or something on the rear camera screen, plus visual on the LCD? Anyway meter attachment is easy. (but for Ken it is $81 - and yes I agree it is better to be stranded, than lose the engine at 10000 feet.)

True, one may not "need" a light meter for underwater work with a RED system. Given the as yet unknown and untested camera exposure options and lattitude of camera and redcine etc. However, if you know the rating is 320 and the FPS is X frames then the sekonic meter will speak the truth, i.e., the selected f stop will land the images in or near the center of the sensor's exposure index.

Example - A gray whale suddenly glides 10 meters underneath you as you notice it is in the process of giving birth. You can:

A) Hit record - read the sekonic and set the lens (3-5 seconds) and focus on getting the shot.

B) Hit record - look thru rear of housing at histograms on camera while interpolating data to select f stop and at some point focus on framing the shot?

C) Hit record - look at external LCD for exposure index while fiddling with f stop to get the correct exposure and at some point focus on framing the shot?

D) Not get the shot but rather simply oberve the moment passing you by as you're interpolating histograms while narced out of your mind cuz you've descended past 140' on air while fiddling with the exposure analysis data?

BTW - Trick question, there is no correct answer like most government tests there is only the best answer.

Mike ICMA: I surrender - I am simply going to print a series of $81 checks payable to Aquavideo and mail them weekly cuz I see where this is going:help:

Steve Gibby
04-08-2007, 11:45 AM
One other factor though, if you're shooting RAW, rather than RGB, is that if you're in the ballpark for exposure at acquisition, you have the ability to adust the gain up or down with REDCINE, along with the white balance, color, saturation, contrast, and curves. It's a very different ball game than when shooting RGB or film, where the exposure is burned in at acquisition. In my thinking, if you're shooting RAW, and you're irised within a relatively close exposure range of what's framed and shot, you should be just fine shooting without a meter, using the exposure tools that are integrated into RED One (histogram, etc.).

Either way will work. I guess it comes down to what you're comfortable with - and whether you're shooting RAW or RGB with RED One. Depending on how quick and accurate the exposure tools on RED One are, shooting RGB without a meter, may also be quite easy. We should know in 8 days at NAB...