All Activity

I have only seen it working in a studio, which means in perfectly controlled conditions. In the water, color absorption changes a lot with distance, and the orientation towards the sun changes much more than in the air. A good white balance is more than enough. The goal is to have colors that are pleasant rather than faithful

Be aware: the cooler color temp strobes will usually marginally win the brightness test. So as HF-1 and Maxi are really just 1% difference this can be solely blamed to color temp difference. Furthermore, here in the community of underwater shooters we are unable to fullfill industrial test standards, where we would take 10 units of each type and multiple measurements (a hell lot of work) to counter-act production variances and variance resulting from your own measurement errors. You commonly observe 3-5% variation across same production models industrial testing for the before mentioned reasons. So I would conclude,... they are basically equally bright and Retra Maxi caught up to the HF-1 . One more question to Dave: as you put housing and dome around for your test. Was this shot in Air (I mean the wall) or did you submerge everything in a pool test ? This would be an interesting detail for me. Maybe you want to mark this in your beam shot .jpg (in water / or in air shots) and also name the lens as a 15mm fisheye for readers who just stare at the table or will see this quoted somewhere in the future. Thanks for putting so much work in this @Dave_Hicks 💪

I totally agree with @Architeuthis on this point. In real world shooting switching from FULL to +2 level in M Mode on the Backscatter HF-1 has really efficient and high impact. It will substantially light bigger reef sceenes. Also I would like to point out, that the beam coverage and quality of light with my Apollo III 2.0 is really decent underwater and I have the gut feeling this might be related to the dome glas in front, which will have no effect in air but once submerged play out a substantial role. In land test the coverage looks like you have put a reduction ring on the Apollo.

As I recall the gamma curves from cameras flatten out in the highlights - it's certainly not linear response, I think that is what may be happening. In which case you could have a separate curve for the top end shot at a smaller aperture, lower ISO or an ND filter or some combination. Those high powers would probably manly be used where you can't get as close perhaps? Ideally you would use a flash meter.

External TTL Converter 18023-M24 for Sony, installed on the MARELUX housing. (Photo by Phil Rudin)

Good morning zlati, how much for the wwl1 alone plus shipping to Italy? Thanks!

There must be a problem with the measurement of brightness at the very high power levels: 99% vs. 98% for the Retra at booster vs. full power, 98% vs 96% vs 91% for HF-1 at +2 vs +1 vs Full. This would mean almost no difference in real world and this is not what my practical experience is with HF-1... With lower intensities the measurements look more reasonable... Could it be that many pixels are already in saturation at these very high intensities? How is the brightness quantitated by means of the histogram in LR?

Likely there is dimenishing returns or efficiency at the high end. The histograms at the top levels do show more light but it is a very minor difference stepping from boost to full on both strobes. Setting such a small apeture and ISO might flatten the gradient some what and a light meter could show a different spread. None of these strobes did any throttling as I took only two or three frames at the high power levels. And i don't think i have ever shot a wide angle strobe at full power on a proper dive. My poor snoot strobes like the MF-2 and Atom get a much tougher work out.

Just to confirm as I read it, the HF-1 full and boost modes are listed in manual with limitations on usage with the thermal protection potentially cutting in too many flashes occur, the manual suggests 35-55 full power flashes before it cuts in. Retra doesn't suggest a number and advises to shoot in intervals and pause occasionally, they recommend 5 shots max on their boost mode. Seems like for practical purposes the maxi is effectively brighter than the HF-1 as full power without boost is as bright as the HF-1 at +2 and +2 seems like it has a limited number of flashes before throttling occurs. Regardless seems they are very close in guide number. It is interesting though that you measured the brightness at full, +1 and +2 as very similar. The manual notes that you should get over 1000 flashes at full and over 375 at +2 indicating the strobe is drawing more power in those modes. I also saw it has automatic throttling of light as thermal protection, so wondering if this has kicked in - though I see that the strobe is also meant to emit a long beep if it kicks in and I'm sure you would have heard it if it did. A further thought, both the maxi and HF-1 are very close in in output as measured by photoshop brightness and seemingly close to saturation and both at some power level step show a sudden drop from 90s to 60s in brightness. I'm wondering if the accuracy of using Photoshop to indicate brightness breaks down a little when approaching saturation?

https://makerworld.com/models/2322173?appSharePlatform=copy

I updated the Power Level comparison, trying to find a better and cleaner way to visualize the range and alignment of power levels across the three strobes being compared. Feedback is welcome! (PREVIEW) Power Level Test Suite For this comparison each strobe was set to Full power, Half power, Quarter power, Eighth power. The images were taken with a Nikon Z8, 8-15mm lens at 15mm, 140mm dome, at a range of 65cm from the wall. No filters or diffusers were used. The color temperature of all three strobes is similar at 6200k (Maxi), 6500k (HF-1), and 6400k (Atom). Aperture and ISO were f25 & iso50. As I have compiled the comparison images of brightness and coverage, it became clear that the “Labeled” power levels between the Maxi and HF-1 really don’t map to a common scale. After a variety of methods to visualize the data, I decided to rank the power levels from each strobe by their relative brightness. I used the brightness information from the Photoshop Histogram Information display to capture a common and comparable value. I am sure a professional light meters or similar instrument would be better, but I used what was available. The comparison images align well with the measurements, so I am happy enough with this methodology. The HF-1 has a power level scale from +2, +1, Full, , Half, Quarter, , Eighth, Sixteenth, *. The +2 and +1 levels are documented as Boost modes, but they are fully accessible on the dial. The Maxi has power level scale from +4, , +3, , +2, , +1, , 0, and down to -4. There is a hidden Boost mode accessed by pressing the Center button while at +4. It’s active for just 5 shoots. I suspect this Boost mode will rarely get used due to poor discoverability. (Does anyone ever read the manual?) The Atom keeps it simple with clearly demarked power levels from Full down to 1/32. Additional even lower power levels of 1/64 to 1/1024 are available under a Low Power Mode accessible via the Mode button. Findings: The Retra Maxi is a little brighter at Max Boost mode compared to the HF-1 by a tiny 1% difference. The HF-1 +2 mode maps almost directly to the Maxi +4 level. Backscatter advertises that the Atom at Full is equivalent to the HF-1 at Full. It is close but the HF-1 at Full is 13.75% brighter than the Atom. Summary Notes:The Maxi at +4 is nearly identical in brightness to the HF-1 at +2. The Maxi Boost mode does not move the needle very much further, but it is about 1% brighter than the best the HF-1 can deliver. The fall-off of light is similar across all three strobes at around 1 f-stop 50 degrees from center. The Maxi has the greatest fall off at 1.22 f-stop reduction from center. The HF-1 @ 11 has the least at 0.92 f-stop reduction. The HF-1 and Atom are remarkably similar, as advertised. The HF-1 is 13.75% or 0.07 f-stops brighter than the Atom at full power.

I have tried this on land with a tent made from white ripstop nylon (for diffusion) It is surprisingly difficult to keep all of the air currents out, basically you have to completely weigh down all of the edges and closeup up the velcro zipper around the camera and/or lens to allow no air currents to get in and keep the subject still. Using a shield that is not sealed doesn't work period. You also have the issue that the shield will appear at least partly as the background if it is fully wrapped around. I think any air that gets in then has to exit somewhere, either that or billowing of the tent sides causes air to flow in and out through any opening. In water the forces are going to be greater so any sort of tent or shield will want to sway in the surge as well. Surge can move you, the diver around so anchoring any sort of shield is going to be difficult as the forces on it are quite high. If the shield/tent is loose fabric or mesh it will move and this movement will move the water on the other side of it. It might dampen it a bit but I don't think it will stop it. Being a wave, the surge will also diffract around the edge of the shield. Even if you could find something of an appropriate size, anchoring it on the reef without damaging things or causing subjects to flee I think would be a bigger issue.

Some software, like DaVinci Resolve, has a function where you can set colours using a colour checker, which helps establish accurate colour values. Here is the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mao2HSKxMkY Underwater, where colours are filtered anyway, it seems a bit overkill to aim for colour accuracy rather than visually pleasing results. For example, the colour grading on BBC Blue Planet is far from technically accurate. That said, some videographers do use colour checkers as a shortcut to establish baseline colour information for grading. Personally, I use a WhiBal grey card to set white balance underwater, then adjust in post based on personal preference rather than strict accuracy.

My question is how you would use this? The cameras that I have used simply have a white balance button, and I simply reference off my white fins if I use it. Are you thinking of taking a shot of the card at the beginning of a clip and then using your post processing software on that clip? Perhaps I misunderstand your question or how you would use such a card, and I apologize if so.

I am curious about this as well. Especially, if there is a comparison with Marelux Apollo III 2.0. As circular flash tubes are measured in watts and rectangular flash tubes are measured in guide numbers, it is very hard to compare them solely on the spec sheet. Real world usage input would be great.

So far I haven't done any color grading or any serious video post processing. I wonder do people use color calibration cards? Sounds like a straightforward way to get colors twisted by the usually non-ideal absorbance conditions. Something like this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/DGK-Color-Tools-DKK-Calibration/dp/B00AWT2QCE Are there underwater-friendly models or shall I keep it in a waterproof pouch?

Yes, it is.

Thanks for all the replies! Definitely some food for thought. As a matter of fact I'm already in contact with him. He has told med that S&S are doing some evaluation for this specific setup, ie 24-50+WWL-C on S&S housing. I guess there are more people than me hoping that would work. So I'll probably wait a bit and see if that leads anywhere. As for building my own fit... nah, after reading here, it's just too much work with stuff I have neither talent, equipment nor interest for. So if the S&S track doesn't lead anywhere I shall probably have to either go full Nauticam or be happy with what I have.

Aloha and welcome @Scubatoth

Complete high quality underwater housing kit for a full setup ready to shoot amazing underwater stills and video! Wide angle and macro ports included (including focus/zoom gear) as well as 2 Strobes! Unfortunately I just don't have the time to dive as much as I used to and this kit would find better use with someone else who's looking to really upgrade their underwater image quality. Everything included in the kit as well as descriptions and reviews can be found below. (NOTE, cameras and lenses not included). Check out the link below! Thanks eBayUnderwater Camera Nauticam NA-D7100 Housing, 2x Sea&Sea Y...Find many great new & used options and get the best deals for Underwater Camera Nauticam NA-D7100 Housing, 2x Sea&Sea YS-DI Strobes at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!

The only part i designed was the MF-2 body form. In fusion360. I auto generated the tray, then positioned the MF-2 as a negative modifier to the tray in the slicer. Added some text and color accents in the slicer. Here is the MF-2 negative model. BS MF-2 Strobe Negative.stl

Welcome Aboard!

need to post /reply three times to unlock other topics i believe.

try Topaz sharpen tool to sharpen things up and remove some of the motion blur

Love Roatan! Been twice but it's been over a decade now since last there.