Underwater Bubble Blowers User Group Thread NEW

[Frazier Nivens]

Actually the housing we used that Michael made was aluminum with a nicely made glass dome and everything worked quite well, did the job and the client is over the moon with the imaging, you can blow this up on the big screen and it will hold up just fine.

And Mike is building a REDMOTE housing for total control of EPIC with Canon Lenses.

Can't wait.

[C.H.Haskell]

+1 need a redmote housing. RED please boost your antena frequency to max output!

[Michael Hastings]

Thanks Tom, Ross, Frazier, Clay for the kind words.

Clay - I'm working on it!

BTW As you know, I was pushing back against the idea of the Redmote backplate because it would eliminate the possibility of the LCD at the back which makes an extremely compact package, PLUS I didn't like the idea of 23 o-ring sealed control buttons going directly into the housing with my $50K camera, so wanted the Redmote in a separate box. I think I came up with a stupidly simple solution. Since the LCD sits up pretty high I can mount the Redmote box to the backplate, horizontally so the actual screen is still visible and it only sticks down past the edge of the housing about 3/4 of an inch which is fine since the "feet" on the bottom where you attach a cheeseplate, tripod mount, etc. raises it up far enough that it doesn't hit the deck or table when sitting.

I just got my camera back so will be testing in a few days, but it should work fine since it is only shooting through the acrylic backplate. Before we had it working through the Aluminum side of the housing - but it had to be right over the epic - if you moved it back 8 inches it lost radio contact.
Either way the redmote box has to be in direct contact with the housing for the wireless to work - any water distance in between kills the RF signal.

(Red has pretty much indicated we won't get a wired option for the Redmote - although it would probably be pretty easy to modify the Redmote by taking the back off and splicing in an extension cable, but I haven't gotten around to trying that yet.)

I'm trying to get all of these tests done but have been pretty busy making housings and lately a fair number of rentals. Louis C.K. rented last week for shooting part of his show - a scene in the Miami Beach surf; took another housing over to Nassau saturday for use by the Bahamas Tourism Ministry for their "It really is better..." campaign, and I'm working on another for this weekend.

[Ross Isaacs]

Thanks Tom, Ross, Frazier, Clay for the kind words.

Clay - I'm working on it!

BTW As you know, I was pushing back against the idea of the Redmote backplate because it would eliminate the possibility of the LCD at the back which makes an extremely compact package, PLUS I didn't like the idea of 23 o-ring sealed control buttons going directly into the housing with my $50K camera, so wanted the Redmote in a separate box. I think I came up with a stupidly simple solution. Since the LCD sits up pretty high I can mount the Redmote box to the backplate, horizontally so the actual screen is still visible and it only sticks down past the edge of the housing about 3/4 of an inch which is fine since the "feet" on the bottom where you attach a cheeseplate, tripod mount, etc. raises it up far enough that it doesn't hit the deck or table when sitting.

I just got my camera back so will be testing in a few days, but it should work fine since it is only shooting through the acrylic backplate. Before we had it working through the Aluminum side of the housing - but it had to be right over the epic - if you moved it back 8 inches it lost radio contact.
Either way the redmote box has to be in direct contact with the housing for the wireless to work - any water distance in between kills the RF signal.

(Red has pretty much indicated we won't get a wired option for the Redmote - although it would probably be pretty easy to modify the Redmote by taking the back off and splicing in an extension cable, but I haven't gotten around to trying that yet.)

I'm trying to get all of these tests done but have been pretty busy making housings and lately a fair number of rentals. Louis C.K. rented last week for shooting part of his show - a scene in the Miami Beach surf; took another housing over to Nassau saturday for use by the Bahamas Tourism Ministry for their "It really is better..." campaign, and I'm working on another for this weekend.

What about an extension aerial from the Redmote which pokes into the housing and carries the Redmote signal that way there is only one hole instead of 23 directly into the main housing?

[Michael Hastings]

What about an extension aerial from the Redmote which pokes into the housing and carries the Redmote signal that way there is only one hole instead of 23 directly into the main housing?

I have thought about that but don't know enough about RF to know if it will work, and haven't got around to trying it - would just a length of coax from the redmote housing into the Epic housing transmit the signal? Because you are right - sealing that one cable is easy and done all the time. (I really just need to stop the world for a week so I can try all of this stuff :-) )

[Johnny Friday]

I WISH the redmote carried an RF signal...but i believe it is all blue tooth technology....if we had an RF, i think we would have far less connection failures.....but also more expensive redmotes.....

[Pawel Achtel]

Johnny, I was merely stating the facts. I didn't realise that mentioning that other manufacturers (namely Equinox and Aquavideo) making their housings from sewage pipes would be such a sensitive issue to some posters here. However, this and the utter ignorance about optics let me to believe that they, in fact, do not care about image or product quality and I'm happily accepting this. There is no need for you (or others) to make personal attacks, which are inappropriate on a public forum.

It is only Vimeo but while Pawel would have you believe that anything shot on Epic underwater through a dome will be horrible - it seems that this indicates it isn't so bad.:-)

You are again incorrect and misinterpreted my comments. I agreed that the video may look good to some viewers on a computer screen, What you misinterpreted was that I stated that I do not believe that any housing using 8 or 9" dome can possibly resolve standard definition across the entire sensor. The difference between "horrible" and "good" is still subjective. I am happy to accept that standard definition, distortions and chromatic aberrations may look good for some people. But, I'm not one of them.

And again, we are working on even better solutions, but the current setups are quite good in the real world and one should question the validity, motivation, and possible bias of chart tests that could be designed to make the competition look bad....

Why would you think that Imatest SFR plus charts were designed to make Aquavideo or Gates housings look bad and DeepX good? It sounds like a big load of hog wash to me.

The process I followed is well documented here:

http://www.imatest.com/docs/sfr_instructions/

and here

http://www.imatest.com/docs/sfr_instructions2/

If you believe the process is "designed to make the competition look bad" it would be helpful for you to articulate what part of the process you do not acknowledge. The frames taken with the dome that I captured and published were perfectly sharp in the centre and terribly soft in the corners. The frames that I captured with Nikonos 15mm lens were sharp across the entire frame.

...I/we are not suggesting that we accept lesser picture quality. My point was that you have published charts of tests YOU made; with the cheaper domes that YOU chose - the specific one which is not used on any Epic housing I know of; at the distances YOU chose - which can affect performance since different lenses perform differently at different distances. Your point about above air lenses not being correctable is ridiculous - ...

You are again incorrect.The image plane curvature does not depend on the price of the dome or brand. It depends on the size of it and it is caused by laws of physics, not by your choice or mine.

I published the acquired images of SFR charts (input) and the results (output) using Imatest, which are completely automated and repeatable. These measurements and process are industry standard tests and do not depend on how you perform them. As the only manufacturer that actually cares about measuring and publishing optical performance, we go through the effort and expense of doing so. If you would like to publish your results instead of ridiculing results performed by others, you are welcome to do so.

Given that neither Aquavideo nor Gates housings were available in Sydney at the time of testing, we could not conduct our tests on your behalf.

As a reminder, on numerous occasions I have invited both Gates and you to produce your own MTF measurements across the entire frame (particularly around the corners and edges) and neither Gates nor you were able or willing to publish them. Why?

I can only assume that both Gates and you could not obtain any sharper images than those I produced .with an 8" Aquatica dome and Master Prime 14mm lens. And, those measurements, which were performed from f/2.8 through to f/8.0 clearly indicate to me that an 8" dome is unable to resolve even standard definition resolution in a corner of an image projected on S35 size sensor using even modestly wide rectilinear lens. The edge fuzziness increases both with the angle and sensor size. The MTF graph reaches 0% contrast at a fraction of the sensor Nyquist limit, meaning that there is no way to retrieve this lost data through image sharpening or CA correction in post.

If you would like to contradict my measurements in any meaningful or objective manner, a measurement of MTF in the corner of your optical system would need to be made and published. Unfortunately a Vimeo clip played on a computer is not a contradiction of any of my comments simply because a statement "doesn't look bad on Vimeo" and "does not resolve standard definition across the entire frame" are not mutually exclusive statements. The first one is a subjective opinion of a lay person and the second one is a quantitative assessment of the optical performance supported with proper measurement using tools recognised and commonly used within the industry.

...the Nikonos is a 30+ year old above air design with a combo dome/corrective optic (you say the dome curved field is impossible to correct yet it is the water contact surface of the dome that creates the curvature and of course the Nikonos water contact surface IS JUST A DOME! - the correction is done behind it with other elements so obviously it CAN be corrected) . Modern wide angles with current glass formulations, CAD and CNC technologies that allow much more flexibility in aspherical elements, nano coatings, etc. are FAR superior to older designs. The current 14-24 Nikon zoom is better than the ultra primes and is pushing the Master Prime (AND covers full 36x24 sensors) and to suggest it can't be well corrected for underwater use flies in the face of common sense given what has already been developed for other lenses over the past 20 years.

You are again incorrect. The Nikonos 15mm lens is not "just a dome". Unlike a dome and land lens combination it does not produce curved image plane and produces sharp images underwater across the entire image frame.

The image curvature mainly depends on the size of the dome. The smaller the dome the bigger the image curvature and the softer the edges. I do not understand how Aquavideo dome or Gates dome port would produce vastly different results than an 8" Aquatica dome.

My measurements also indicate that at f/5.6 the Nikonos 15mm is almost as sharp in the corner underwater as Master Prime 14mm is in air. Both comfortably out-resolve the Epic sensor in every part of the RED Epic frame. I have not seen any evidence that would suggest that 14-24mm Nikon could be adapted for underwater use such that it would resolve even standard definition, let alone HD or 5k.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, you are welcome to produce it.

I simply published a real world sample, which while only on Vimeo (SO FAR) looks better/sharper than any real footage I have ever seen from you. Further even the Redone footage that I have seen on large displays shot by Peppermill, myself, or Frazier Nivens (both Frazier and I also have Epic footage) looks way, way better than anything I have ever seen from you.

Of course, you are entitled to an opinion and I respect it. However, I would like to point out that measurable optical performance is contradictory to your opinion and you were unable to quantify or support your view in any reasonable manner. As a scientist, I always strive to measure things first before attempting to compare or comment on them.

I strongly believe that we can not improve or compare anything if we can not measure it first. Since industry standard, repeatable and comparable tools and methodologies exist and are easily available, I believe we should embrace them and allow the customers to make informed and better decisions.

Stating that a dome port or flat underwater port produces "sharp images" with a 5k camera where, in fact, failing to even resolve 10% of it across the entire sensor is simply false and misleading.

[Johnny Friday]

Pawel, if domes are so "out" and no longer the in thing....what was all this talk a few years ago about your cineport being the only port to resolve incredible corner to corner resolution beyond that of all other ports....so is cineport just another hunk of glass now as well?

....and Pawel, by you insulting other manufacturers about making their housings from so called sewage pipes---is that not a personal attack coming from another manufacturer? I am merely pointing out the double standard for which you keep making a stand for....I'm not associated with any manufacturer here, but i do recognize your sly remarks about each manufacturer and rarely can i recall a direct attack from any of them on you...in fact i hear only that what a great idea you have and one that is merely another option. So keep pounding away as this is who YOU ARE....and your customer base sees this...and it has nothing to do with the fact that the other manufacturers may not seem to care about optics or quality of image...but what they see or I SEE...is a guy that is full of himself and cannot accept anything but HIS system....very shallow sir. And you have a lot to learn from a lot of other very smart folks on this forum. I think you've gotten a lot of cudos from them for your wonderful development and many have "kindly" pointed out your systems shortcomings....you on the other hand have blasted how terrible the others are....but that is your style.

[Pawel Achtel]

Hi Johnny,

The CinePort has 12" curvature. It produces substantially smaller image plane curvature than an 8" dome does. Further, it is optimised for exactly 90 degree angle of view effectively blocking stray light, which greatly enhances the contrast. It has other features, such as special coating and very tight tolerances that make it perform very well compared to other dome ports.

So, if a dome port is what is required for whatever reasons, I believe that the CinePort is the sharpest and highest contrast dome port available.

Of course, as sizes of sensors keep increasing, the image curvature increases too. Exponentially! While the CinePort still remains by far the sharpest and most contrasty dome port that I'm aware of, I'm more satisfied with the images produced by those wonderful; Nikonos lenses, particularly when corner sharpness and flat field of view are required.

There are some footage samples acquired with the CinePort and 2/3" sensor (HDCAM) on my website. Of course, with such a large dome and so tiny sensor, the resulting image curvature is negligible and the dome and land lens combination can out-resolve the sensor even in the corners of the frame.

[Jannard]

Knock it off boys... or the thread gets shut down.

Jim