Canon R5 Underwater Cinema

Hey has anyone had the chance to film some 4K 120 or 8K 24 underwater with the new canon R5? I would love to see some sample footage of Pelagics or reefs. Thanks!!! Just got my hands on one and now I have to pull the trigger on the housing, dome port etc etc

Moved to Video Gear and Technique.

Just did my first dive with the R5 and thought I'd share some sample footage (youtube links below). It's nothing special, just a few different scenes to give you a feel for the image quality. I have the camera in a Nauticam housing with ZEN 230mm dome, using the RF 15-35mm.

Settings on all these videos: 4K 30p, HQ mode (oversampled from 8K), ALL-I compression, Canon Log on. Files were edited in Premiere and exported in maximum render quality.

Footage was shot on St. Eustatius in the Dutch Caribbean. All videos are shot at around 70 ft depth, conditions were not great: it was an overcast day, still early in the morning, so not a lot of light or colors available at that depth. No artificial light was used, just ambient light. I used a white slate to manually white balance the footage, which is a bit of a hassle on the R5.

Taking into account these low-light conditions, I think the camera produced some fantastic video. I am sure though the footage will be much more vibrant in shallow water with more sunlight.

Interested to hear what you think. Happy to upload more footage with different settings next week if anyone is interested.

Wow - this is stunning Ruud, beautiful colours and dynamics, thanks for for sharing these. Impressive results on the R5!
I really love the colour balance of well shot ambient light video, wish there was more of this around.

Have you seen this:

There is really a limited benefit to high megapixel full frame cameras underwater. Although you may get excited when you own one of those toys the reality is most scenes have little to no contrast, not much colour and water destroys resolution

So a lower megapixel count cropped format at the end produces same or even better result at lower cost. I don't see this changing any time soon

44 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

So a lower megapixel count cropped format at the end produces same or even better result at lower cost. I don't see this changing any time soon

I'm with you on that one. Having moved "down" (?) from FF (D800) to DX (D500) I'm really happy with it - smaller domes, easier to get sharp wide-angle results and an easier and cheaper choice of lenses. Cheaper. What is there not to love? Or miss?

40 minutes ago, TimG said:

I'm with you on that one. Having moved "down" (?) from FF (D800) to DX (D500) I'm really happy with it - smaller domes, easier to get sharp wide-angle results and an easier and cheaper choice of lenses. Cheaper. What is there not to love? Or miss?

Nothing really the full frame use case is low light or extremely high dynamic range for landscapes

None of those situations exist underwater. The fluid dampens dynamic range and most times you lack contrast and low light means low no colour so you introduce artificial lighting anyway

Once you balance those two and operate at constrained depth of field full frame offers no benefit to the average user than a cropped format

Obviously if you remove bulk and start looking at WACP type of equipment the situation changes but just plugging a standard full frame in a dome even large does not really move the needle anywhere

Here are a few more R5 sample videos, shot with the same settings as I had in the previous post. This time I used the EF 8-15mm fisheye lens. Depth this time was in the 55-60 ft range, sunny conditions.

These have a really nice "look" to them. Are these clips graded? If so in what and how heavily?

On 1/28/2021 at 12:43 PM, Interceptor121 said:

 

Obviously if you remove bulk and start looking at WACP type of equipment the situation changes 

How so 121?

What do you mean by "remove bulk" and if using the WACP type equipment what do you mean by "the situation changes"

Interested in your thoughts.

How so 121?
What do you mean by "remove bulk" and if using the WACP type equipment what do you mean by "the situation changes"
Interested in your thoughts.

1 minute ago, Interceptor121 said:

The WACP allows you to shoot at wider aperture
The cost is very high and the bulk even more so you need to consider that
I see it an option for a resident professional guy but not for a hobbyist or someone travelling a lot


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right understood 121. But do you think the WACP gives a sharper image? Sure the edges clean up quite a bit but do you think they give more then just sharp corners?

Right understood 121. But do you think the WACP gives a sharper image? Sure the edges clean up quite a bit but do you think they give more then just sharp corners?

Depends on the lens I guess. Every lens has its "sweet spot". But then again, underwater is a whole different paradigm.

Most lenses (but not all) are usually best at 2-3 stops closed down from fully open......so that Sigma 18-35 f1.8 is generally going to be sharpest at about f4. Getting out to f8 will generally be that the lens sharpness and other parameters are in decline at that point.

There are some lenses at thier absolute best 1 stop closed down from fully open. Others only sharpen up at f8/f11. 

But I guess the only lenses that matter with the WACP are the older ones recommended by Naughty Cam. I am not sure where the best performance on those lenses are.

I still think Nikonos are King of the Hill all things considered.

Depends on the lens I guess. Every lens has its "sweet spot". But then again, underwater is a whole different paradigm.
Most lenses (but not all) are usually best at 2-3 stops closed down from fully open......so that Sigma 18-35 f1.8 is generally going to be sharpest at about f4. Getting out to f8 will generally be that the lens sharpness and other parameters are in decline at that point.
There are some lenses at thier absolute best 1 stop closed down from fully open. Others only sharpen up at f8/f11. 
But I guess the only lenses that matter with the WACP are the older ones recommended by Naughty Cam. I am not sure where the best performance on those lenses are.
I still think Nikonos are King of the Hill all things considered.

4 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Wet lenses preserve sharpness so a wet lens and average zoom may be better than a great lens behind a dome


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That seems to be crux of it. I have seen footage from high end cine lenses (40/50K lenses) attached to a red in a housing with a dome.....and the results are no better then a lower end setup. A lot depends on the operator.

However there is no getting away from physics. Water is one hell of a filter to shoot through.

That seems to be crux of it. I have seen footage from high end cine lenses (40/50K lenses) attached to a red in a housing with a dome.....and the results are no better then a lower end setup. A lot depends on the operator.
 
However there is no getting away with physics. Water is one hell of a filter to shoot through.

So we are holding out for a 16 bit RAW cam at a reasonable price.

By 2025, maybe, by 2030 16 bit RAW will be old school.

So we are holding out for a 16 bit RAW cam at a reasonable price.
By 2025, maybe, by 2030 16 bit RAW will be old school.