I have often been wondering about shooting video using a fisheye, and haven’t seen much about it. I have, maybe mistakenly, kept video to rectilinear lenses.  I decided to give it a try, in part because I went on a trip with only the Canon 8-15mm L lens and my 140mm port (Marelux housing, R5, 30mm extension … and no video lights cause I wasn’t planning on shooting video on this trip).  I used two setting – one using enhanced  stabilization mode (which I think is 1.5xcrop but it is not listed anywhere that I can find) and another using the full frame but digital stabilization (like 1.2 crop).  All 4k 60p w/ mild color grading (ambient white balance, no lights). 

 

Here is the enhanced stabilization shot (1.5 crop?  at 24m depth) :

 

 

And here is the standard digital stabilization (~1.2 crop? at 19m depth):

 

 

Other than the curved horizon in the 1.2 crop, I actually don’t find the fisheye distracting.  With the enhanced stabilization, I don't eve see a distracting horizon. I won’t avoid shooting video with this combination again – although next time I will bring lights…. I do really love traveling with a 140 dome rather than a 230.

 

Do others shoot video with a fisheye? Or do most stick to rectilinear?

 

PS - The subject is largely sad – a reef that experienced repeated bleaching events followed by a crown of thorns outbreak leading to massive coral loss.  While the bleaching is likely to continue, it hadn’t extended this deep until the COTS really knocked everything else out. A similar event happened in 2010 (not bleaching but hurricane and COTS) and it recovered in 10 years and got back up to 70% living corals – hopefully this recovery happens again. 
 

Thanks. I have wondered the same thing with this lens. I have the Kenko 1.4x teleconverter, and on my Sony the 4k60 has a 1.2 crop too, so I am guessing the resulting field of view is pretty good. I also wonder if using the additional advanced stabilisation means the 4k60 is not necessary for smoothing footage? 

 

And wow the reefs filmed look so sad. Can you say how patchy this was - just some areas of reef with extra local warming due to water flow or was it very widespread? 

 

7 hours ago, ColdDarkDiver said:

I have often been wondering about shooting video using a fisheye, and haven’t seen much about it. I have, maybe mistakenly, kept video to rectilinear lenses.  I decided to give it a try, in part because I went on a trip with only the Canon 8-15mm L lens and my 140mm port (Marelux housing, R5, 30mm extension … and no video lights cause I wasn’t planning on shooting video on this trip).  I used two setting – one using enhanced  stabilization mode (which I think is 1.5xcrop but it is not listed anywhere that I can find) and another using the full frame but digital stabilization (like 1.2 crop).  All 4k 60p w/ mild color grading (ambient white balance, no lights). 

 

Here is the enhanced stabilization shot (1.5 crop?  at 24m depth) :

 

And here is the standard digital stabilization (~1.2 crop? at 19m depth_

 

Other than the curved horizon in the 1.2 crop, I actually don’t find the fisheye distracting.  With the enhanced stabilization, I don't eve see a distracting horizon. I won’t avoid shooting video with this combination again – although next time I will bring lights…. I do really love traveling with a 140 dome rather than a 230.

 

Do others shoot video with a fisheye? Or do most stick to rectilinear?

 

PS - The subject is largely sad – a reef that experienced repeated bleaching events followed by a crown of thorns outbreak leading to massive coral loss.  While the bleaching is likely to continue, it hadn’t extended this deep until the COTS really knocked everything else out. A similar event happened in 2010 (not bleaching but hurricane and COTS) and it recovered in 10 years and got back up to 70% living corals – hopefully this recovery happens again. 
 

The missing data is what focal length you shot at, you need to zoom into 10mm on APS-C to get the full 180° diagonal, or whatever field you get with the 8-15 at 15mm and at a 1.2x crop need to zoom into I estimate 12.5mm to fill the frame.  The fields of view would be:

 

1.2x crop	horizontal	vertical	diagonal
12.5	147	94	178
13	141	90	169
15	120	78	143
APS-C
10	144	92	180
13	107	70	132
15	92	61	112

 

You can see on APS-C the field is very close to a WWL at 13mm zoom and at 15mm on the 1.2x crop you are slightly wider than a WWL.   15mm zoom on APS-c lands you with a similar field to an 18mm rectilnear across the frame.  The projection of a WWL is very similar to that of a zoomed in fisheye lens and people often use the Nauticam wet optics for video.  The very worst distortion is in the corners on a fisheye and this rapidly reduces as you zoom in. 

 

I would think a full 180° fisheye would be an issue on video - on reefs you have fish coming from all angles and if one swam in from a corner it would change shape quite dramatically as it crossed the field.  On the WWL and zoomed in fisheye the corner distortion is less extreme and changes in fish or other subject size is not noticeable and I think this is why you find it usable for video and of course the curved horizon is less noticeable as well.  The real test would be to have a shark or turtle cross the frame diagonally to see how that looks .  You can of course edit out extreme changes, but it would be nice not to have this as a concern.

Good question.

I stick (almost) to rectilinear.

In your shots the fisheye works because as Chris wrote, with the crop you are cutting most of the fisheye effect. Moreover the motion is parallel to the reef (trucking shot) and there are no subjects crossing the frame. The shape of the reef confuses or hides the horizon distortion.

In documentaries it is used in just such cases: a bird's eye view of a reef where the particular perspective given by the fisheye communicates to the viewer the vastness and infinity with a frontal movement (dolly shot) as in your second case.

 

The problems come when you have subjects crossing the frame or staying on the edges. The distortion introduced by the fisheye is not to say annoying but alienating.

Imagine doing a rotation on yourself (panning shot) to follow a fish while keeping the bottom reef framed. The movement would look unnatural. In these cases it is more a matter of FOV and even extreme rectilinear lenses suffer from the same flaw.

 

However, I have used the fisheye several times and don't mind it, knowing its characteristics you can exploit it. I still use the WWL-1B which has a slight distortion typical of fisheye. Often, on panning shots, I zoom in slightly to avoid the distortion.

 

Once I forgot the dome for 7-14 at home and saved myself with an 8mm fisheye. Too bad they were all wreck dives. I won't tell you how the gun barrels came out! 😀

But it was that or nothing...

 

 

17 hours ago, John E said:

And wow the reefs filmed look so sad. Can you say how patchy this was - just some areas of reef with extra local warming due to water flow or was it very widespread? 

Thanks for the comments John.  The northshore of the island was hit the worst by far and there are pockets of healthy reef that some how missed the COTS outbreak.  Thankfully there are still some pockets or what appears to be largely untouched reef on the island and the COTS are far less abundant than they were a few months ago.

 

As for the 60p not necessary for smooth footage with enhanced stabilization, I still edited out some bits that looked pretty bad and would have needed some slow down to make up for my poor camera holding.  Having said that, this camera looks best at 4k - 30p and I have definitely shot that when I can't use 125/s shutter speed due to lighting and so anything that helps is welcome - including the stabilization.

11 hours ago, Chris Ross said:

The missing data is what focal length you shot at,

Thanks Chris for all your input in your post.  I shoot at 15mm, full frame (but with the mentioned crop).  My 8-15mm is just taped at that setting and I don't use TC.  My love of the fisheye is really its ability to be sharp across the frame at a reasonable fstop and a small dome.  I love it for its CFWA and how it gets a subject to stand out as well (aka the role of a fisheye), too but in some cases that is secondary.  Less important (to me) is the field of view as I find that 14 or 16mm rectilinear is more then sufficient. For others that is different which makes you comments very meaningful and appreciated to the discusion.

 

Thank you for the points on the 180 as well - I can imagine some fun youtube clips shot that way with a static camera but can't image that in a documentary.  I may have to try it at some point though. Actually - I guess I did using a 360cam and some of the post processing. Not quite the same but an interesting affect - as an example, that starts at 8-14 sec in the following video:

 

It was fun but clearly not an everyday shot. 

8 hours ago, Davide DB said:

In documentaries it is used in just such cases: a bird's eye view of a reef where the particular perspective given by the fisheye communicates to the viewer the vastness and infinity with a frontal movement (dolly shot) as in your second case.

 

The problems come when you have subjects crossing the frame or staying on the edges. The distortion introduced by the fisheye is not to say annoying but alienating.

Imagine doing a rotation on yourself (panning shot) to follow a fish while keeping the bottom reef framed. The movement would look unnatural.

Thank you Davide - all great points.  Definitely not the lens for a shark dive.  Or maybe an important point is that if using it on a dive like that (or if you stumble across a shark or turtle) - adding a heavy in-camera crop can make it a usable option for that dive. While not shown here, I also have a few shots of divers working underwater as well as very close and pan shots and with the heavy in camera crop the edges moving out of the frame were not distracting. As pointed out, this removes a lot of the fisheye effect but still results in a pleasing image by reducing the alienating impact when objects move out of the frame. Happy to share if people are interested.  

 

That is also a great point about the Nauticam options and their mild fisheye effect.

 

The fisheye still won't be my go-to lens for video for all the points you (and Chris) bring up, but I won't avoid it either. Well... maybe I will avoid it for gunbarrel shots on a wreck 🙂. 

20 hours ago, ColdDarkDiver said:

Or maybe an important point is that if using it on a dive like that (or if you stumble across a shark or turtle) - adding a heavy in-camera crop can make it a usable option for that dive.

 

Yes, long story short, it's not a matter of fisheye or rectilinear lens but just a matter of actual FOV. 

The most critical camera movements are tilt and pan.

 

Ciao

Thanks for the video and the comments about this. I am also debating what to do about video with the 8-15. I really like to have this lens with a small dome, but what to do for video...

Would using the 1.4 teleconverter allow video shooting when zooming to 18-21mm ?

Or is the only option is two lens ... and two domes as the 140mm doesn't work with the (canon RF) 14-35mm rectilinear lens !

5 hours ago, Cyrille said:

Thanks for the video and the comments about this. I am also debating what to do about video with the 8-15. I really like to have this lens with a small dome, but what to do for video...

Would using the 1.4 teleconverter allow video shooting when zooming to 18-21mm ?

Or is the only option is two lens ... and two domes as the 140mm doesn't work with the (canon RF) 14-35mm rectilinear lens !

It seems people are happy to shoot video with the WWL and similar wet optics. The barrel distortion of the WWL is pretty similar to what you get from a fisheye zoomed into about the same angle of view. When zoomed into 15mm with the 1.4x you have something like the field of view of a 16mm rectilinear lens (same horizontal field ). A WWL has about the filed of a 12-13mm rectilnear. You still have some barrel distortion but it is much milder.

The barrel distortion of a fisheye lens stretches the corners and the stretch is progressively greater as you move out from the centre. Adding a 1.4x effectively crops that field of view and magnifies it and effectively reduces barrel distortion.

The next consideration is that the converter arrangement you have allows video AF. I'm assuming it's probably OK on Canon but may need to check that C-AF works with a third party RF-EF converter if you go the Canon 1.4x path or that the Kenko 1.4x also works well enough with AF.

You could also get the same impact by using a 1.4x in camera crop for video if that is an available option. Certainly would be easier on the wallet.

Thank you Chris!

I originally really liked the flexibility of the wet WLL for multiple video shots. But no one but Nauticam offers the rf24-50 lens gear.

I have the 8-15 and trying to figure out if I can use it for everything or if it’s too naive, even with a 1.4.

I can indeed crop mode (canon r5 II) … some tests needed before I pull the trigger for the WA config(s?) !

I think it really depends on whether you need the extra reach. Using a 1.4x with the 8-15 overlaps with about the 24-30mm range on the 24-50 with WWL. This would be about 13-15mm on the 8-15 and the distortion should be fairly similar to what you would get on the WWL in the same range. I'm not sure how important video is for you, if the crop mode is good enough and you are happy with the results maybe that's all you need? If you decide to go with the 1.4x you could use crop for extra video reach as well. The only slight downside of the 8-15 is that on full frame it works better stopped down in comparison to the WWL - but for video perhaps corners aren't so important. Shouldn't be an issue to stop down for stills.

on the 24-50 zoom gear email Isotta, they may be able to provide you with one, I've heard they have done this in the past. Otherwise you could design one yourself and have it printed. Alternatively Waterpixels member Ross Gudgeon ( @Gudge ) does 3D printing of gears. You could contact him - his website is here:

https://www.bluefishphoto.com.au/3d_printing/

I think moving shots with fish eye will always be kinda unpleasant due to a moving distortion. Maybe a fish bowl or a big fish without other objects reference might be tolerable but any wreck or corral will be just unpleasant. Having it on the tripod should be more or less fine.