I stumbled across this video and was amazed! I don’t know if this is a UK-based underwater equipment dealer or a photographer, but kudos!!!

This is by far the best must-watch and well-illustrated video to get your head around dome port theory and positioning. The author uses really clear graphics and small animations, and I was genuinely impressed by how logically and neatly he covers every aspect - in exactly the right order.

Very educational - and even better than Dr. Mustard’s “Beyond the Dome” talk - which (imho) had a tiny hint of Nauticam-flavoured mysticism. In contrast, the recommendation above feels pretty timeless and pleasantly light on branding - even if the creator might be in the industry, it comes across more like genuine enthusiasm than a sales pitch.

Thanks for pointing this out. Excellent clip, as is his Part 2 on domes.

Yeah, really good. Such a clear explanation.

At the end of the day, it's about compromises......

Hi all, does anybody know the author / anchorman of these four videos ?

At first I thought he is affiliated with the former British camera store OceanOptics, because of the channel name. That however seems wrong. The channel origin seems to come from The Netherlands and I think that this might be confirmed by a slight Dutch accent I am hearing.

I am interested to learn more about his uw photographic works and if he maybe is a well established pro or even a waterpixeler 😉 ?

having found the optical centre of a lens and the theoretical centre of the curvature of the dome...

• how critical is the approximation of the two? Spacers are available for ports but seem to come in say, 10mm increments

does being off by 2-3 mm make a critical difference? or is within a centimetre or so acceptable?

12 minutes ago, Mike Saunders said:

having found the optical centre of a lens and the theoretical centre of the curvature of the dome...

• how critical is the approximation of the two? Spacers are available for ports but seem to come in say, 10mm increments

does being off by 2-3 mm make a critical difference? or is within a centimetre or so acceptable?

You will note in an example in the video, the lens used a 17mm extension added to if I recall correctly a 30mm ring. However the video notes that the combination vignetted, so the suggestion was to just remove the 17mm ring and just use the 30mm. This gives you an idea of what you can get away with. IMO an ultra wide rectilinear lens (14mm FF equivalent or less) will be more sensitive than a fisheye lens. I think it likely also depends on the lens in question. A marginal performer might show more issues if the spacing is less than optimal. I think the right answer is get as close as you can within the limitations of your housing system. Some systems have 10mm increments others the extensions go up by 5mm.

53 minutes ago, Adventurer said:

Hi all, does anybody know the author / anchorman of these four videos ?

At first I thought he is affiliated with the former British camera store OceanOptics, because of the channel name. That however seems wrong. The channel origin seems to come from The Netherlands and I think that this might be confirmed by a slight Dutch accent I am hearing.

I am interested to learn more about his uw photographic works and if he maybe is a well established pro or even a waterpixeler 😉 ?

I don't know him, but he definitely has a Dutch accent.

Edited 6 hours ago6 hr by waso

It is worth watching the video even just for his shirt!

P.S.

Jokes apart, great video and explanation indeed