3Deep - 3D underwater housing for Epic

[Pawel Achtel]

Made entirely out of precision machined titanium....the world's first and only 3D underwater housing resolving 5k (and beyond) is coming soon...

This is revolutionary. From about 150 line pairs per image height of corner resolution using traditional flat port to full 5k in corner resolution with no chromatic aberrations and no distortions introduced by a lens port.

The housing uses submersible Nikonos lenses specifically designed for underwater.

Comments welcome.

[Kwan Khan]

Nice.
Looks pretty smaller then Liquid Pictures 3D System.
dimension and weight? please

[Pawel Achtel]

Thanks Kwan. How does 25kg (55 pounds) ready to dive sound?

[Campbell Goodwille]

Looks interesting - what's the interaxial?

[Pawel Achtel]

less than 10 cm.

Underwater you can get away filming closeup with large interaxial as there is no background at infinity usually.

[Kwan Khan]

Thanks Kwan. How does 25kg (55 pounds) ready to dive sound?

sweet sounds...

[Michael Hastings]

less than 10 cm.

Underwater you can get away filming closeup with large interaxial as there is no background at infinity usually.

I hate to be a party pooper but, although it's true that you can get away with a bit more underwater, this is a ridiculously large IA for anything but maybe a long shipwreck shot, or establishing shot of a reef.

Not to mention that you will throw away a huge amount of resolution when you converge in post.

We have a lot of footage shot at 7cm IA and even that is pushing it, not really acceptable for any serious production.

TANSTAAFL (There ain't no such thing as a free lunch)

[Pawel Achtel]

Mike,

The loss of resolution resulting from converging in post from 5k using superb lenses that actually resolve full 5k underwater, and not less than 150 lines per picture height like a flat port does, is insignificant. At worst you end up with 4k razor-sharp images, not half the standard definition material with severe pin-cussion distortions and chromatic aberrations spanning 17 pixels. BTW, CA for Nikonos 15mm (your party pooper) lens measured in the corner is about 0.3 pixels - as good as Master Prime in the air.

Not to mention that it is a common practice to converge stereoscopic 3D material in post as it is a relatively easy and reversible process as opposed to converging in the filed that is not-so easy to correct in post if you get it wrong. I personally would find it next to impossible to converge cameras underwater due to task loading and other limitations.

As to the interaxial distance, I disagree. Human eyes can easily focus and fuse images that are 30cm in front of the nose. Likewise, you can focus and converge as close as 50cm from lenses set 10cm (4") apart as long as there is no distant background at the same time, which is rarely the case underwater due to limited visibility of water medium.

As you know, the vast majority of underwater filming is done with wide angle lenses: coral reefs, kelp forests, divers, schools of fish, sharks, whales, wrecks, dolphins, etc...and only a small percentage requires a macro setup, which is best handled with a beam-splitter rig.

I never claimed 3Deep is for macro. For specialised macro and some closeup situations a beam splitter rig would be a better choice. However, I do believe that 3Deep is a perfect setup for the vast majority of underwater subjects and situations. Horses for courses.

[Lucas Wilson]

Pawel,

Your housing looks cool, but it is not the first or only 5K underwater housing. We have an underwater beamsplitter housing for EPICs out shooting right now for a major feature. We have Side-by-Side housings for EPICs and other cameras that are in use as well..

Best,

Lucas

[Michael Hastings]

Mike,

The loss of resolution resulting from converging in post from 5k using superb lenses that actually resolve full 5k underwater, and not less than 150 lines per picture height like a flat port does, is insignificant. At worst you end up with 4k razor-sharp images, not half the standard definition material with severe pin-cussion distortions and chromatic aberrations spanning 17 pixels. BTW, CA for Nikonos 15mm (your party pooper) lens measured in the corner is about 0.3 pixels - as good as Master Prime in the air.

Not to mention that it is a common practice to converge stereoscopic 3D material in post as it is a relatively easy and reversible process as opposed to converging in the filed that is not-so easy to correct in post if you get it wrong. I personally would find it next to impossible to converge cameras underwater due to task loading and other limitations.

As to the interaxial distance, I disagree. Human eyes can easily focus and fuse images that are 30cm in front of the nose. Likewise, you can focus and converge as close as 50cm from lenses set 10cm (4") apart as long as there is no distant background at the same time, which is rarely the case underwater due to limited visibility of water medium.

As you know, the vast majority of underwater filming is done with wide angle lenses: coral reefs, kelp forests, divers, schools of fish, sharks, whales, wrecks, dolphins, etc...and only a small percentage requires a macro setup, which is best handled with a beam-splitter rig.

I never claimed 3Deep is for macro. For specialised macro and some closeup situations a beam splitter rig would be a better choice. However, I do believe that 3Deep is a perfect setup for the vast majority of underwater subjects and situations. Horses for courses.

I have no problem with converging in post. As you say, it is quite common and often the preferred method., however IIRC the greater the IA the more you have to crop to get the images to overlap, thus more loss of resolution.

I would strongly disagree with your assessment of the interaxial being fine. I don't think you will find many experienced 3D people to agree with you, and I strongly suggest that anyone considering this do some independent research on the subject. The fact that you CAN converge, doesn't mean that you should or that it is good or that you can do it for extended periods. One of the biggest things hindering acceptance of 3D is the amount of poorly shot 3D that causes problems with viewers.

It is one thing to do this like we did with a $3000 dual consumer camera rig with (and even then we had 7cm IA with equivalent or wider lenses), totally different to suggest that professionals spending at least $50K can/should compromise to this extent.

I have a lightly used dual canon 1080P camcorder underwater 3D rig with wide converters that we built for the sinking of the Vandenberg in Key West, that I would be happy to sell to someone on Reduser for $2500 if they would like to experiment with a 7cm interaxial - includes 2 canon HD camcorders, side by side with manual controls to synchro start.