Bubble in WWL-C Wet Lens?

[RomiK]

32 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Nope

it is the combination of lens and port

see my hammerhead video lens shooting in the light and minimal issues with wwl-1 and panasonic

 

little more effort and producing screenshots eh? 

 

32 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

problems reduce going from wacp-c to wacp to wwl-1 with the 28-60

No issues with 28mm and 32 flat port as this is practically on the glass

obviously any lens when pointed directly to a light source will have issues

it strikes me how naive some underwater photographers are they never tried the lens on its own and expect zero issues underwater 

 

the 28-60 is quite decent against bright light on its own and obviously the additional optic can only make things worse but they are not as bad generally 

 

the construction of all wacp wwl is identical the wet lens should do worse however it seems the air gap between lens and port is the most important factor as stray rays bounce into the extension 

 

WWL-1B 28-60 3 bubbles and one flare... bubbles in the middle of dive no idea where they came from... HDR screenshot so dismiss colors exposure etc... This hassle alone with bubbles coming from literally nowhere makes me think of WACP. 

 

It would be great to hear and see from WACP owners the flare thing...

[Architeuthis]

2 hours ago, RomiK said:

Hmm...  this thread made me think and review... also because still weighing pros and cons of switching from WWL-1B to WACP-C... these are movie screen grabs (jpegs from HDR screen so...) from some dreamy shots I was trying to make and it seems the flare is a thing with WWL-1 (it typically appeared in the opposite corner away from the light source and was moving within the frame). It is on stills too. My WWL1 was sitting in a closet for a year as I was using 180mm glass on my trips so when reviewing it caught me by surprise. I am wondering what experience do WACP owners have?

 

I cannot compare flare susceptability of WWL-1 or WACP-1 with WACP-C, as I only have limited experience (ca. 25 dives) just with WACP-C/Sony 28-60. The example I have posted above was a seldom event that was seen in three out of approx. 2000 photos.

 

=> What I can say is that the WACP-C is not really prone to flare in my hands

(I am interested to hear from others how "flare performance" of WACP-C in real life is compared to WWL-1, WWL-C and WACP-1/2, but I think someone should open a separate tread on this, as Ridgebackpilot wants to hear about IQ with WWL-C (I guess on Nikon camera) compared to WWL-1 and WACPs and he did not get much info on this, so far...)...

 

Wolfgang

 

P.S.: I posted the example with flare from WACP-C, just to show that a wet lens is not required to produce similar reflections, but it does not really contribute to the topic...

Edited April 23 by Architeuthis

[RomiK]

Another example of flare (HDR screenshot again), lower left corner develops even more with orange better defined... although truth is Hollywood is using flares even in post to dream up the shots 🙂 ... I would agree that there would be minimum of unwanted ugly flares from unintentionally positioned lights... the bubbles though piss me of at times... it takes one diver below... 🙈

[RomiK]

Last sample. Would anyone take guess which is which?🤷‍♂️ There are small whitish bubbles which I assume are on the outside, one visible big 'bubble' but the shape of aperture diaphragm and off course the flare. Is the big one really a bubble or is it a lens thing? Sony 28-60 WWL-1B

Edited April 23 by RomiK

[Dave_Hicks]

7 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

Red spots in side position same identical are bubbles with on top ghosting

if the lens doesnt see the strobe it cannot happen you could see however a halo which is flare

flare=lack of contrast hazy image

Ghosting=shapes in the image typically of the color of the lens coating

Both can occur but without the bubble the wwl-1 doesn’t ghost easily even with the strobes in the image 

See below: This is flare caused by the strobe reflecting in the lens. The lens/port CAN see the strobe. I do a lot of shooting where the subject is backlit and/or the strobe is in front to the port aiming back toward the lens. Most ports don't show this sort of reflection, so I suspect it is a quirk of the WWL wet optics. In this case it's easily removed from the photo. I took another shot seconds after this one where I pulled the strobe back just a bit and the reflection went away.

 

I was shooting an Inon strobe with a t-shaped pair of bulbs. It's clearly visible.

 

 null 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Dave_Hicks said:

See below: This is flare caused by the strobe reflecting in the lens. The lens/port CAN see the strobe. I do a lot of shooting where the subject is backlit and/or the strobe is in front to the port aiming back toward the lens. Most ports don't show this sort of reflection, so I suspect it is a quirk of the WWL wet optics. In this case it's easily removed from the photo. I took another shot seconds after this one where I pulled the strobe back just a bit and the reflection went away.

 

I was shooting an Inon strobe with a t-shaped pair of bulbs. It's clearly visible.

 

 null 

Inward lighting for wide angle has strobes behind or side the port

it should not get in this situation ever

also they are not red

[Dave_Hicks]

8 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:

Inward lighting for wide angle has strobes behind or side the port

it should not get in this situation ever

also they are not red

 

You are talking like there is only one correct way to do lighting. This is not so. You can backlight from behind the port. You are able to create much more dramatic light and shadows with all of 3d space to position your strobes, which I do frequently. Pointing the strobe toward the lens is OK. However, with this WWL len/port it can catch an internal reflection perhaps more dramatically than other ports I've used.

 

"also they are not red"

 

Are you trying to tell us that this is a T-shaped bubble or sun flare? I assume the color is changed via some refraction in the glass as in chromatic aberration.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Architeuthis said:

 

I cannot compare flare susceptability of WWL-1 or WACP-1 with WACP-C, as I only have limited experience (ca. 25 dives) just with WACP-C/Sony 28-60. The example I have posted above was a seldom event that was seen in three out of approx. 2000 photos.

 

=> What I can say is that the WACP-C is not really prone to flare in my hands

(I am interested to hear from others how "flare performance" of WACP-C in real life is compared to WWL-1, WWL-C and WACP-1/2, but I think someone should open a separate tread on this, as Ridgebackpilot wants to hear about IQ with WWL-C (I guess on Nikon camera) compared to WWL-1 and WACPs and he did not get much info on this, so far...)...

 

Wolfgang

 

P.S.: I posted the example with flare from WACP-C, just to show that a wet lens is not required to produce similar reflections, but it does not really contribute to the topic...

Any wet lens including a dome adds to the problems hence anti reflective coating 

the issues I mention are unrelated to the lens construction which is the same 

 

the gap between lens and port creates room for light bouncing ABC of wet optics reduce any gap

 

When the WWL-1 dry and wet were designed the 28-60 didn’t exist

There was the 28/2 and the 28-70

the performance of the 28/2 with WWL-1 with wet lens was acceptable 

the performance of the wwl-dry with the 28-70 was not acceptable the product never came to life

later nauticam releases the wacp-1 larger design of the wwl-dry identical construction main focus dslr users

in 2020 sony releases the 28-60 this lens works with both wwl-1 and wacp-1 

Later nauticam releases the wacp-c this is actually the wwl-dry with built in extension same identical design

wwl-c is instead another design for compact cameras with 24mm master lens separate project

you can see a comparison wwl-1 vs wwl-dry I did with pool test shots with the 28-60

you can see that optical performance is the same main driver is do you want to spend money and get a dey mount or not in case you have that choice 

most other systems do not have a lens like the 28-60 that works with both this is a sony specific issue

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Dave_Hicks said:

 

You are talking like there is only one correct way to do lighting. This is not so. You can backlight from behind the port. You are able to create much more dramatic light and shadows with all of 3d space to position your strobes, which I do frequently. Pointing the strobe toward the lens is OK. However, with this WWL len/port it can catch an internal reflection perhaps more dramatically than other ports I've used.

 

"also they are not red"

 

Are you trying to tell us that this is a T-shaped bubble or sun flare? I assume the color is changed via some refraction in the glass as in chromatic aberration.

No your flare is the color of the strobe

when you have an air bubble it troggers additional issues on top 

red is also a result of residual ca 

[Jim Laurel]

The Sony 28-60 and WWL-1B don't produce this kind of flare, even shooting toward the surface. Something else going on here. Some of the example shots were definitely flare from strobes. In any case, strobes should be well behind the front of the lens, and not aimed inward. If anything, you want them aimed outward a little to reduce backscatter.