
Everything posted by bghazzal
-
Shooting action-cams with a "red" filter in flat profile, and manually white-balancing in post-production
Thanks, glad you found the approach interesting. I tried to summarise the whole shooting process in the article below, which might be a little clearer: https://waterpixels.net/articles/articles_technique/afterhours-magic-ambient-light-video-workflow-for-action-cameras-r161/ cheers b
-
Macbook Air 256gb SSD storage or 512GB?
Yes, I definitely second the 512GB SSD hard drive if you can. I'm on a refurbished 2017 macbook air bought in Thailand in 2020, and it's still fine, but will definitely need to update at some point. I can edit 4K 8bit video files by running FCPX on an external Samsung SSD which helps, but the chipset is too old to read recent codecs like HEVC (example GoPro 4k files), so I edit those with proxy files. And I can't edit in Resolve because the chipset is too old for optimised playback (FCPX integration is doing an amazing jo)... If you drop below 20/30 GB of free space on the internal hard drive it slows down performance, so get the space if you can.
-
Bonfire dive in Bonaire
I see, thanks - by hectic (typo) I mean that with bonfires you're reconstructing the food chain, and there's a lot of fast pace hunting/feeding going on, a lot of swarming in general. I find the subject of shallow planktonic dives vs. deep water dives very interesting. The vertical migration in the water column often evoked seems to be a little more complex than it looks at first glance. I'm in contact with someone doing bonfires in Anilao for a while now, and he's getting roughly 80% the same creatures as on drifting black water dives over deep water, including blanket octopus, argonauts, etc... This is something you also see in that Lembeh interview I'd posted in the dedicated thread, where a lot of footage was actually from bonfires more than deep blackwater, and it's similar if I compare what I saw on bonfires in east Bali compared to deep water dives off Tulamben, similar subjects mostly, with the odd critter only seen over deep water (larval phase crustaceans, etc) It's very interesting to see what people like Ryo Minemizu are seeing both in bonfire-type stationary setups and actually drift dives over drift waters. You also have very interesting encounters Gil Koplovitz is getting snorkeling (!) at sunrise off the beach in the west Mediterranean. More than actual life / subjects, the major difference seems to be the nature of the encounters. In blackwater you're drifting along, and because of that you're not building up the food chain. Encounters are more relaxed, and there's generally more paced-out activity unless you run into swarming critters. Which makes it more accessible for imaging, despite the logistical constraints.
-
Bonfire dive in Bonaire
Since you've done both, what would you say is the main difference? More heptic predatory action as opposed to more spaced out encounters? in terms of species - this is probably highly location dependent - there seems to be about 80% concordance between deepwater and shallow water in places like the Philippines or Indonesia, but deep water has unique deep water specimen, and the fact that you're stationary on bonfires rather drifting in blackwater means that current also affects things a lot more.
-
Dive with 2 complete rigs?
I've worked in Komodo NP - I would say forget it on most if not all sites in the park. Too much current (drift profiles, think Tatawa Besar, Siaba Kecil, Karang / Taka Makassar, not too mention Cauldron, or more "stationary" but often ripping dives like Castle and Crystal Rock or Golden Passage in the north, ...), inadequate dive profiles for lugging two rigs, and also the fact that sites themselves are pretty easily separated between macro and wide angle sites. Two rigs in the water could be pulled off on more protected sites like Siaba Besar, Mawan or even Batu Bolong, but these are not really macro sites, so I wouldn't try to complicate things further in what can sometimes be a complicated diving environment, and just carry one rig underwater, which can already be a handful. Since you're diving Bali as well, might be easier to focus on macro in Tulamben for instance, and just focus on wide angle in Komodo - with the odd dedicated macro dive if you're doing sites like Cannibal Rock or others in the South, or Waeniliu or night dives in the central area hope this helps! cheers ben
-
Afterhours Magic: Ambient Light Video Workflow for Action Cameras
Afterhours Magic: An Ambient Light Video Workflow for Action Cams (and Other WB-Challenged Cameras) INTRODUCTION Getting good colours in underwater footage, especially when shooting in ambient light, has been a challenge since the early days of underwater cinematography, and action cameras are no exception. As divers learn in their certification course, water absorbs light unevenly, with longer wavelengths like reds and oranges fading quickly as depth increases, leaving underwater scenes dominated by blues and greens unless corrected (here's a little video illustrating water's filtration effect at depth). With action cam manufacturers releasing new models every six months, and online talking heads pitching each one as the miracle solution for underwater video, it might seem like the issue has long been solved by 2025. Apps, mods, and camera software all promise one-button perfection: minimal effort, high reward, and content ready for instant sharing. On recent action cameras, the most common approach is to leave white balance and colour corrections to the camera's software, to tweak settings and hope for the best... Examples of typical results for ambient light footage shot at depth with auto-settings on recent action cameras and an iPhone16 : (source) But step off the marketing carousel for a moment and take a look at recent underwater clips, do the colours actually look... Good? Natural? Pleasing? Those are very subjective words, of course, and the devil is in the details. And yet some of us are not entirely convinced by what we’re seeing, despite all the technological advances, and started to question this in-camera, software-driven approach to the underwater colour problem, especially on action cameras, paradoxically the crown jewels of the one-button, auto-settings, shoot-and-forget philosophy. Compare the above to Nick Hope's 2007 (!) almost "prehistoric" tests of underwater manual white-balance with a filter : (note the cast on the auto WB test) (source) This is where this tutorial comes in. It offers a user-based, more manual alternative to letting the camera try to solve the colour issue through automation, which we believe is really beneficial for action cams. What follows is a simple, experience-based workflow for shooting underwater video in ambient light on action cameras – or any camera that struggles with manual white balance at depth. The core idea is to take back control of white balance and colour processing by setting the white balance point manually in post-production, just as you would, at depth, with a camera that allows manual WB adjustment. We believe that this manual approach, when done correctly, usually yields better, more flexible results than current in-camera software solutions, and helps you get the most out of your gear—especially older or less advanced models. Capture from personal footage shot at roughly 10m on the GoPro 4 in a flat profile with a UR-Pro Cyan filter (Richelieu Rock, 2018) Early personal raw clip shot at roughly 15m on a GoPro 4, in flat with a UR-Pro filter, rebalanced in post (2016, Mike's Point, Raja Ampat) Other selected video clip examples shot in flat with a filter on various action cameras are visible here WHO IS THIS WORKFLOW TUTORIAL FOR Let’s be clear: this approach probably isn’t for everyone. That’s not elitism, just practicality, especially given the phone-and-app-based social-media sharing ecosystem underwater video has evolved into. This workflow is best suited for videographers who: Work on their clips in post-production, including colour grading and editing Use video editing software that allows manual white balance adjustment (some phone-based apps may not support this) Shoot with cameras where in-camera processing can be limited or turned off, especially auto white-balance handling and colour corrections THE IDEA BEHIND THIS UNDERWATER SHOOTING WORKFLOW This approach is designed to help you get the best out of your footage by regaining some manual control over colour and white balance, which are set during post-production rather than left to in-camera software. To be clear, this is not a method for getting the best results straight out of camera (SOOC). It is not a software-driven workflow that delivers instantly shareable clips, which is often the focus of many action cam discussions today. However, we believe that when used correctly and in the right conditions, this approach to ambient light video can produce better, more flexible results than in-camera correction, and help you get the most out of your gear. It is especially effective on action cameras, and with older camera models that lack advanced colour correction or built-in underwater modes. WHAT SHOOTING SITUATIONS DOES THIS WORKFLOW APPLY TO This workflow applies to the following underwater video scenarios: Full ambient light video, where you're shooting at depth using sunlight as the only light source. It also applies to mixed lighting setups, where natural sunlight is combined with artificial light that has been filtered to match the colour spectrum of sunlight at depth. This is often referred to as ambient-filtered mixed lighting. Shooting in the ambient light "Goldilocks zone" – not too shallow and not too deep. This is the depth range where there is enough natural light to work with, while the colour loss from seawater remains manageable. The exact range depends on local conditions, but in areas with strong sunlight it generally falls between 5 and 20 metres, with a sweet spot around 8 to 15 metres depth. In some cases it can extend a bit deeper, or be quite shallower. Using a filter on the camera lens also affects this workable range, as you lose 1 to 2.5 stops of light, and compensating with higher ISO has limited effectiveness on action cameras, as it quickly degrades the image and introduces noise. Capture from GoPro7 footage, ambient light at 10m, flat profile with a filter, rebalanced and quickly graded in post (Okinawa, 2025) AMBIENT LIGHT VIDEO SHOOTING WORKFLOW CAMERA SETUP 1. Set your camera to shoot in a “flat” or flat-ish profileThe goal here is actually to limit what the camera does in terms of in-camera white balance and software colour correction. This is an essential step for effectively rebalancing and grading your video footage later. Shooting flat avoids the unnatural hues often introduced by "underwater modes" or automatic white balance settings, which typically boost the red channel in ways that degrade image quality and make post-production white point and colour balancing more difficult. Another common issue is inconsistency in colour treatment within a sequence, especially when the camera is making adjustments on the fly. This isn't a problem for still images, but it is a major issue for video. This will vary with camera brand (GoPro, DJI, Ace360, etc.), but the logic remains the same: limit what your camera does in terms of automatic white balance, colour, contrast and exposure adjustment at depth, and aim for a more neutral - yet information-rich - profile. In our camera settings, rather than trusting the camera, we're aiming to record footage in a neutral, information-rich way, so we have the maximum flexibility for correcting white balance and colours. Flat profiles, log, and similar settings all serve the same purpose: capturing the necessary information in a neutral form, with a wider dynamic range and more information, so you can work efficiently on the footage in post. The idea is similar to shooting RAW in still photography. Be careful with ISO settings - using a filter on the camera lens means 1 to 2.5 stops of light - however, it's best to clock the max ISO on action cameras, as image quality typically degrades above 800 to 1600 ISO, depending on models, camera capacities and local conditions. Example of basic GoPro camera settings: Enable Protune Set colour to Flat Set white balance to Native Set max ISO to 800 (or a little higher if your camera can handle it without too much noise) Leave shutter speed on Auto (seems to work better than the 180° rule of shutter on action cams) Typical GoPro 7 "flat" profile settings 2. Use a well-designed filter on the camera lens (if possible) If you can, use a well-designed filter on your camera lens. In blue water, a good filter helps correct the seawater’s colour distortion by cutting excessive cyans and greens while allowing deeper blues through. This warms up the image hitting the sensor, helping the camera handle white balance more effectively -whether manually at depth or during post-production. The goal is to restore a more natural colour balance by compensating for the way sunlight is filtered by the water column. In green water, a different filter is needed, usually with more magenta tones, to account for the different spectral loss. Keldan 7m compensation Spectrum Filter transmission data, blue water filter (left) and green water filter (right) (source) Well-designed filters typically have a fluorofilter-like spectral curve. Examples include the now-discontinued UR-Pro, Keldan Spectrum filters, and Magic Filters, or fluorofilter profiles (see the section below and this thread here for more detailed discussion on filters) Be aware that many so-called "red" filters on the market are poorly engineered. Slapping any red plastic on a lens doesn’t magically fix underwater colours. The filter must target specific wavelengths, not just “warm up” the image. LEE 008 Dark Salmon filter gel, next to the UR-Pro Cyan filter on a GoPro SRP adapter If you're using a filter (and you should if possible), make sure to: Compensate for the light loss by adjusting your exposure or EV settings Stay within the filter’s optimal depth range Avoid pushing ISO too high - action cams often get noisy above ISO 800 or 1600 underwater When shooting in a mixed-lighting setup that combines ambient sunlight with artificial lights, make sure to use ambient filters on your lights, not just on your lens. These filters adjust the colour temperature of your artificial light to match the filtered sunlight at depth, helping maintain consistent colour balance in your footage. And let's not forget the most important point of this workflow: shoot in flat, and set your white-balance point manually. Don't let the camera decide! Captures from footage shot on a GoPro12 with a filter, but in auto settings. This illustrates the importance of taking control and rebalancing the footage in post. While it's difficult to predict the exact outcome, the colour palette would likely appear more natural, with fewer “day-glo” hues and a milder cast if shot in flat and WB set in post (source) IN WATER Shoot Within the Ambient Light “Goldilocks Zone” When shooting in ambient light, make sure to stay within the optimal depth range where ambient light still works and colour can be recovered in post. This "Goldilocks zone" is deep enough for water to filter sunlight and create colour loss, but not so deep that the camera struggles to capture usable information. The exact range depends on location and conditions, but in strong sunlight areas like the tropics, it typically begins below 5 metres (shallower than that, there's not enough filtration for the technique to matter) and extends to around 20 metres. In very clear, well-lit water, it may stretch to 25 or even 30 metres. The sweet spot is usually between 8 and 15 metres. Keep in mind that filters reduce light reaching the camera sensor by 1 to 2.5 stops. This is a significant tradeoff, but one that pays off if you stay within the right depth and lighting conditions. Beyond 20 metres, results often begin to deteriorate due to reduced light (causing noise and loss of contrast) and stronger water filtration (reducing the colour information the sensor can capture). Always adjust your shooting depth based on the day’s local light and visibility conditions. (source) IN POST-PRODUCTION 1. Start by resetting the white balance point in your footage The first step with action-cam footage is to reset the white balance during post-production. This mimics what you would do at depth when using a camera that supports manual white balance, and is the most important step in this workflow. If using a filter (you should...) your footage will have a warm cast from the filter, which is actually desirable because it will help rebalance the image. Since you shot with a flat profile and minimal in-camera adjustments, the footage will have little to no colour correction or white balance applied. Which means using a filter and shooting flat on cameras without manual white balance is not a good way to get great results straight out of camera (SOOC). You will need to rebalance the footage (set the white balance point) in post at the very minimum. This differs from cameras that allow manual white balance at depth, where the SOOC result is already balanced and ready to use. With action cams, rebalancing in post is a crucial part of the workflow. The good news is that your footage contains all the colour information needed, usually with a higher dynamic range, and will be far easier to grade than footage with in-camera software corrections baked in. This is where the magic happens—you turn what looks like lead into gold. Most video good editing software lets you set the white balance point either manually or automatically, which sometimes works fine. Some reliable targets for white balance include sand, bleached or dead coral, divers’ tanks, exhaled bubbles, and marine life with clear white or grey areas. Experiment with different targets and methods to see what works best for each clip. Setting the white-balance in Final Cut Pro X (source) 2. Grade and edit your footage to taste You now have a well-balanced base to work with, offering good dynamic range and colour data since you shot with a flat(ish) profile. Play with curves and saturation levels to see how much colour information has actually made it to your sensor. This process will vary based on your editing software and personal preferences, but most major platforms (DaVinci Resolve, Final Cut ProX, Adobe Premiere, Sony Vegas...) can handle it very well. I’ve only worked with older-model action cams, and I’d love to see what data the new 10-bit colour models are capable of capturing! 3. Example of my action-cam post-production workflow, in Final Cut Pro X (FCPX)The following clips were shot in a flat profiles on a GoPro 7 with a filter gel on the lens, in Okinawa (blue water, average visibility, the center-left blur is caused by a water droplet on the wide angle lens) Unbalanced footage shot at 10m depth in flat on the GoPro7, with a cast from the filter (in this case, a Lee fluorofilter gel), as imported The same footage, rebalanced after manually setting the white-balance point with the dropper tool Same footage, after a little colour grading Unbalanced footage shot at 10m depth in flat on the GoPro7, with a cast from the filter (in this case, a Lee fluorofilter gel), as imported The same footage, rebalanced after manually setting the white-balance point with the dropper tool Same footage, after a little colour grading A more saturated grading option (what some would call taking it to 11, to show what we have to work with ˆˆ) Exported video clip example (first grade option) CONCLUSIONTo conclude, letting camera software handle underwater ambient light colour correction is like trying to shoot on land with coloured lighting and expecting the camera to fix everything digitally. On land, beyond setting the colour temperature to match your light source, if your light has a strong colour cast, you’d typically add a lighting gel or change the light itself rather than relying on the camera’s software to correct the cast. This is exactly what a physical filter does underwater in ambient light. Our primary light source - the sun - is filtered by water and has a colour cast. Most modern cameras can handle mild casts near the surface. But when dealing with strong blue, green, or cyan casts, such as at around 10 metres depth, it is still best - even in 2025 - to physicall correct the light with a filter and to manually set the white balance point rather than relying on the camera to try do this automatically. In a complex environment like underwater ambient light, it’s still better to manually set the white balance at depth - or, if that’s not possible, shoot in a flat profile and reset it in post-production - rather than relying on camera software to handle it. In both cases, using a well-designed filter on the lens helps rebalance colours by compensating for the colour cast caused by water's filtering effect on ambient light. This approach delivers more workable footage in post and generally better results overall. It can also help you get the most out of your camera, especially if you’re using an older model with limited software capabilities (see for yourself in the examples above what a GoPro 7 is still capable of…) Voilà. Thanks for making it to the end. I hope others find this approach useful, even if it is seen as outdated or old-fashioned. Just try it yourself and do it right. Understand filters, and trust manual white-balance. It works. Cheers, happy bubbles, and most of lovely colours to you all! Ben GOING DEEPER (further discussion) WHY DOES THIS APPROACH WORK When used within the right parameters, this workflow of shooting flat ambient light footage with a filter delivers excellent, workable results. It often outperforms unfiltered, in-camera corrected footage, especially on action cams that cannot manually set white balance at depth. Let’s dig into the reasons why this is the case. 1. The problem with in-camera software-based white-balance and colour correctionWe live in a time when cameras have powerful software corrections capable of amazing things. So why – despite claims that software will solve everything and that filters are a thing of the past – does filtered footage shot in flat profile give end results which generally still look better than in-camera software-corrected footage, especially when it comes to colour balance? And why is filter-use still common in blue-chip professional productions (mostly shot on cinecams) but seen as outdated in amateur and semi-pro circles? Putting aside cameras like those from Canon, which can produce very pleasing (though not always the most accurate) results when performing manual white balance at depth, automatic in-camera white balance and colour correction generally do not work well at typical ambient-light diving depths. And it's important to note that if yo work with in-camera software-corrected footage and attempt to fine-tune white balance or simply grade the footage by setting the white balance point in post on an easy white or grey target (like sand, a diver’s tank, bubbles, or bleached coral), you’ll often end up with odd reds or magenta peaks and strange colour balance. I’ve done this many times. Editing unfiltered, non-flat GoPro footage from colleagues in various locations simply does not work well, or has a very limited reach. Rebalancing white balance causes colour balance to break down, leaving you stuck with limited adjustment options. This happens mainly because the camera software boosts the red channels to compensate for the underwater blue cast on ambient light. This creates two main problems: • The camera artificially boosts red channels, which degrades image quality. • A strong colour cast often remains - usually cyan, green, or blue - and if it doesn’t (for example, in “underwater mode”), the resulting palette tends to look unnatural and unbalanced. When you set white balance at depth or in post, you are telling the software “this area should be gray or white,” which should cancel out the blue and cyan cast. But if the reds have already been over-boosted by the in-camera software, the result becomes unnatural, producing all kinds of strange magenta tones and other colour distortions. A typical example of footage shot with auto-settings on recent action cameras, and colour-corrected in post, showing a residual cast (source) 2. Why shooting flat and using a filter generally works better than auto in ambient light Just to be clear, the most important point in this workflow is to set the white balance manually. This is standard procedure when shooting underwater ambient light video, and shooting in a flat colour profile while adjusting white balance in post is simply a workaround for action cameras that lack crucial manual white balance control at depth. If footage is shot in a flat colour profile, as opposed to in-camera auto-colour correction, the reds are not artificially boosted. This allows for cleaner white balance correction and colour grading without magenta distortions, and also captures a greater dynamic range. These advantages are well understood in still photography, where shooting in RAW mode is standard. A flat or flat-ish profile lets you manually adjust recorded reds and magentas in post without dealing with baked-in colour corrections that vary across frames. Even better, using a well-designed physical warming filter on the camera - such as the UR-Pro or equivalent - acts on ambient light before it reaches the sensor. This means: • The sensor records a warmer image, reducing the need for software correction. • A good filter that lets deep blues pass through (for example, one with a fluorofilter-like spectral profile) results, after white balance reset, in a warmer, more neutral, and more accurately balanced image. Deep blues in the background remain intact while the foreground gains accurate tones, producing a more natural and balanced look. GoPro7 footage shot in flat with a good filter, before and after setting the white-balance point in post Setting underwater white balance is essentially about how much you need to "stretch" colour channels to counter seawater’s filtering of ambient light The more stretching required, the greater the image degradation. Using a physical filter on the lens reduces the amount of stretching needed to rebalance the image. In short, filters physically warm the ambient light before it reaches the sensor, helping to reduce the green/cyan cast. This: • Enables better manual white balance control at depth or in post • Avoids baked-in in-camera software corrections that are difficult to work with in post • Preserves depth in colour by extending the filter’s effect deeper into the scene, resulting in less drastic background colour loss than software correction The main downside is the inevitable loss of stops of light caused by the filter, which can be a dealbreaker in some shooting conditions. In contrast, in-camera software colour correction: • Manipulates individual colour channels, with results that can vary widely • Often produces baked-in artefacts and uneven colour palettes, and does not fully correct the colour cast • Degrades footage, making it difficult to grade in post • Can be unstable and vary within a sequence, which is problematic for consistent grading GoPro7 Supersuit housing with AOI wide lens adapter and a fluorofilter gel 3. Limits of manual white-balance setting (at depth or in post-production) and of filter use As mentioned earlier, the following limitations will happen, even when using a good filter: • In clear, well-lit waters like the tropics, a filter’s effect typically breaks down beyond 20 to 30 metres depth in good conditions. • You can still set white balance, but the colour cast becomes too strong and the image balance collapses. You would need a stronger filter, but then you lose too much ambient light, which itself becomes scarce with depth - a true catch-22 situation. • After a certain point, ambient light is insufficient and seawater’s filtering effect becomes too strong. Setting white balance in these conditions, whether at depth or in post, stretches colour channels too much, causing distortion similar to shooting without a filter. In these situations, it’s best to accept the colour cast or rely on artificial light. • In shallow water, such as snorkeling depths, the filtering effect on sunlight is mild. Working on filtered footage here means you are actually cancelling out the filter’s effects to set white balance. It’s possible, but there is little reason to use a filter in shallows since the required hue corrections degrade image quality. • Available ambient light is crucial. Using a filter means losing stops of light. In some sea conditions, there simply isn’t enough ambient light to use a filter effectively. Like at depth, it’s best to accept the colour cast or use artificial lighting. As previously mentioned, boosting ISOs can only go so far on action cameras. • Filter design versus seawater qualities / conditions. Most filters are made for blue or cyan water - which is ideal for ambient light shooting - but not for greener waters. Cyan-cutting filters reduce green tones, which can result in unnatural colours and poor balance compared to filters designed specifically for green water. The UR-Pro and Keldan brands, for example, offer, or offered, green water filters (which are typically magenta) These require experimentation, but since greener waters are usually darker, the light-related limits mentioned above often apply. Depth limits: ribbontail ray swimming at 25m (seafloor is + 40m plus), GoPro7 footage capture, flat profile with a filter A WORD ON FILTERSAs previously mentioned, not all lens / camera filters are well designed or adequate for our purposes. Unfortunately, many commercially available filters are really not designed by people having looked into filtering characteristics and are just very bad (<cough> PolarPro...</cough> ), and also used by people not shooting in flat and rebalancing the footage in post, but using auto-settings instead, which tended to give filters a bad-name because of strange hues this generated... Yet as explained above, to get good consistent results when using a filter, it is always best to shoot in a flat profile and set the white balance point manually, either at depth if the camera allows it, or in post, on cameras like action cams. A filter like the beloved, proven UR-Pro, or others with a similar profile and a good warming effect really works best for this approach, especially on action cams, which are still quite limited in their handling of underwater white balance issues, despite all the marketing hype. Historically, the UR-Pro company developped, in the 1980s, a very efficient filter for shooting at depth in blue water. This filter works very well on cameras ranging from cinecams (Gates sold UR-Pro filters for their housings...) to DSLRs, mirroless and, until a few years back, action cameras. Unfortunately, the company no longer exists, and UR-Pro filters are now very difficult to find. The UR-Pro hold a special place for me as I've started using them on GoPro4 action cams, and kept at it because it just works really well. And recent gear addition such as wide angle conversion lenses for action cameras (by AOI / Backscatter / Inon) sent me on a quest to retro-engineer my beloved UR-Pro filter, which you can read about here: https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/1414-ur-pro-filters-info I came up with the following recreation of the UR-Pro Cyan's spectrum transmission curve: Recreation of the UR-Pro Cyan spectrum transmission curve For other cameras, high quality alternatives exist, primarily Dr. Mustard's Magic Filters (primarily designed for ambient still photography, first marketed in 2006) and especially Keldan's Spectrum Filters. It's best for you to experiment with what works best for you with your camera setup. On my Lumix LX10 compact, I actually prefer the Keldan Spectrum -1.5 filter gel (ambient light test reel here), which is not as strong as the UR-Pro Cyan and more accurate, but got good results with UR-Pro, Magic Filters and Keldan. On the GoPro however, the Keldan and Magic don't work as well, as this type of camera seems to require a slightly stronger filter to get good results in post. Warming isn't everything, but based on tests, the UR-Pro Cyan offers the strongest warming effect (around 3000–3100 K at –1.6 EV), more than the Original Magic (≈ 2400 K) and the Keldan SF-1.5 (≈ 2350 K) As an example, here is a side-by-side, flat and unbalanced, then lightly graded comparison of UR-Pro and Magic filters on Gopro7 action cameras, highlighting the marked differences between the two filters on action cameras. This quick test was done on breath-hold in east Bali (Jemeluk), with the AOI wide lens on one camera. GoPro7, Magic Filter and UR-Pro Cy filter, unbalanced, flat footage GoPro7, Magic Filter and UR-Pro Cy filter, rebalanced in post and lightly graded But as this test example show, even a weaker filter like the Magic Filter gel is still workeable on action cameras, but the spectrum is slightly difference. When rebalancing, only the Magic filter requires boosting magenta in white balance, while UR-Pro and Keldan require reducing it, which is a significant difference. The main idea to take home from research on the UR-Pro cyan filter spectrum profile is that is basically that of a fluorofilter (aka fluorescent filter). Fluorofilters were a type of filter designed to "Convert U.S. Cool White or Daylight type fluorescent lamps to 3200K photographic tungsten and remove the excess green." to quote filter maker Rosco, ie. to convert a light source that is overly green and cool, such as fluorescent lighting. A fluorofilter profile like the Rosco 3310's is very close to the UR-Pro's original profile, in fact almost identical. UR-Pro spectral transmission curve, vs. Rosco 3310 Fluorofilter gel curve The issue these days is that fluorescent lights have been phased out by LED lights, rendering fluorofilters obsolete in the lighting world, and thus also very hard to find! Despite the difficulties, there are interesting commercially available alternatives in lighting gels—it is mostly a matter of matching similar spectrum transmission curves. The Lee 166 Pale Red and the Lee 08 Dark Salmon (LDS) are both good practical alternatives for example. Unfortunately, the Lee Pale Red has also been discontinued, and also had a general light transmission that was a little too low for action cams, resulting in an ISO boost. Which leaves us with the Lee Dark Salmon (LDS). The LDS was actually already tested in water and works fine, but with some caveats: As I wrote in the UR-Pro thread after the side by side comparison, it is stronger / darker (and a bit warmer) than the UR-Pro - meaning a little more loss of light / ev, and also a slightly deeper tint in the reds - this is visible when looking at the camera's ISO sensor data, with a higher ISO on the LDS, and also the resulting SOOC footage: GoPro7, UR-Pro Cy filter and LDS, unbalanced, flat footage GoPro7, UR-Pro Cy filter and LDS, results rebalanced in post and lightly graded Yet what this also means is that, as expected, the Lee gel actually works somewhat better than the UR-Pro when going deeper, but this is really give and take, as it means a greater loss of light - which could be fine in the tropics, less so elsewhere. Handling of the blues is also a little different, as seen in the curves. There are probably other fluorofilter-type gels still available somewhere, as well as others with similar profiles. The key is to find one with a curve as close as possible to that of the UR-Pro cyan filter's fluorofilter style curve. The logic is straightforward: seawater filters sunlight and creates a cooling effect, adding green/cyan. A fluorofilter is specifically designed to counter this. But as you can also see on the UR-Pro spectrum graph - and this is where a fluorofilter differs from a simple green-cutting filter - it still lets deeper blues through (resulting in a pleasing seawater blue). This characteristic is harder to find in standard lighting gels. Possible UR-Pro cyan alternatives in the Lee range It would also be interesting to test Keldan's stronger spectrum filter gel on action cameras, as I only tested the SF-1.5 gel. The hunt is on! MIXED LIGHTING SCENARIOSRegarding the complex but fascinating issue of mixed-lighting scenarios, which combine ambient light with filtered artificial light, Swiss manufacturer and concept pioneer has published and collaborated on good introductory videos on the subject: The Keldan Ambient Filter Concept Understanding the Ambient Filter BTM - Filters for Underwater Videography (Red Filter, Magenta Filter, Ambient Light Filter) Recent Keldan light models include integrated LED-based ambient filtering, eliminating the need for an actual physical filter on the lights. When it comes to empirical research on ambient filter creation and filter matching, I'd strongly recommend looking into the following thread by fellow Waterpixeler Dreifish https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/1413-red-filters-and-blue-ambient-light-filters-for-mixed-light-shooting/ as well as Interceptor121's similar but more ancient research here: https://interceptor121.com/2019/11/25/matching-filters-techniques/ Mixed lighting shooting scenario, filter on the cameras lens and on the video lights (source) FURTHER READING / LINKS Related threads https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/1380-shooting-action-cams-with-a-red-filter-in-flat-profile-and-manually-white-balancing-in-post-production/ https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/1414-ur-pro-filters-info https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/1413-red-filters-and-blue-ambient-light-filters-for-mixed-light-shooting/ Camera lens filters and white balance https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/1414-ur-pro-filters-info https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn4NRQgl2tw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COxalutbD38 https://wetpixel.com/articles/ur-pro-shallow-water-filter-review https://www.bubblevision.com/underwater-video/white-balance.htm https://interceptor121.com/2013/01/13/underwater-video-tips-polar-pro-red-filter-for-gopro/ https://xray-mag.com/pdfs/articles/Photography_UsingFilters_15.pdf https://wetpixel.com/articles/filters-and-ambient-light-photography/ http://www.magic-filters.com/download/UWP26a.pdf https://wetpixel.com/articles/complementary-filters-and-wide-angle-underwater-photography http://web.archive.org/web/20191209011451/http://www.urprofilters.com/content.do?region=FilterInstructions#tips https://wetpixel.com/articles/ur-pro-shallow-water-filter-review https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mMb-FcWQz8 https://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?/topic/16970-expodisc-white-balance-filter/ https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/white-balance.htm Mixed-lighting / ambient filters https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/1413-red-filters-and-blue-ambient-light-filters-for-mixed-light-shooting/ https://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?/topic/69260-solving-the-mixed-light-problem/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKk9VBponz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COxalutbD38 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn4NRQgl2tw https://interceptor121.com/2019/11/25/matching-filters-techniques/ https://interceptor121.com/2019/08/03/getting-the-best-colors-in-your-underwater-video-with-the-panasonic-gh5/
-
Kraken KRL-01 vs. Weefine WFL-01
Good question - they used to share same factories, but each have developped their own line of products nowadays, especially when it comes to lights. However, some products are still identical, like the clamps for example, where only the branding/logo changes. If specs are identical (especially weight, material and optical data) there's a very high chance they are the same, but best double check. The Kraken spec sheet is more complete than what I can find on the Weefine side, but yes they look absolutely identical. The weight/fov is a good indicator.
-
Fibre Optic Cables: Keeping them Happy and Firing
Thanks for this Tim, excellent idea - I'm very new to fibre optic cables, but now use a pair for my Kraken video light remote. After a few light transmission issues (the first pair bought just didn't work) and no luck sourcing adequate generic cables in Indonesia, I have a pair of multicore AOI coiled cables which work fine. But they do take a beating given the shore entries I do now, with the rig strapped to my chest. I've been thinking of finding a way to protect them, and the hose solution looks great. Not sure how practical it is for coiled cables, would need to look into what I can source here in Japan. I feel the ones I have won't last forever, so I'm also very interested in sourcing a few meters of the proper optic cables (613-core Fused Multi-core Simplex Cable, Polyethylene Jacket- MCQ-1000 right? Any group order planned for the future or is everyone sorted?) so i can try to DIY cables. Cheers!
-
Recording
Hi Gio, Crisp is a little difficult to define - most action cams will have a sharpness setting (low/medium/high) that you can adjust, and sharpness can also be adjusted in post production. Just don't go overboard otherwise it will start to look quite artificial. The AOI UWL-03 (or its Backscatter / Inon equivalent) will definitely help for sharpness and also corner handling, so that's a big yes. But other major factors come into play, such as the turbidity of the water you're diving in, and available ambient light. The video you're refering to is shot in Bali, which has high ambient light levels. The water around Tulamben isn't the clearest, but sunlight certainly is strong. Not sure you have the same conditions with your honeycomb boxfish clip - I don't where this was shot, but it does look darker (and greener water?) for super shallow depth of 6m. Is it shot in Koh Tao like your other Action 4 test clips? Colour-wise, to me the Tulamben video has a good balance in the shallows, but the colour palette breaks down at depth, with dayglo green hues typical of autowhite balance + in-camera colour correction. I'm not a great fan. Your graded clip works, but I'd say that it seems to be suffering mostly from a lack of light, which would help making it pop, and possibly not super clear water. What are your ISO settings on the camera? Video lights would help for closeups, but normally you should be able to get brighter ambient light wide footage on action cams at such shallow depths.
-
It's all a GAS: Gear Acquisition Syndrome
Agree with all the above - there's a whole eco-system (eco as in economic...) built around product releases, spec speculation, unboxing and what not, but in contrast very little work being done with most cameras (other than "old faithful" models people seem to actually use for a while). Talking-head videos - what some of us call shillfluencers or shill-tubers - are a very good example of this self-feeding marketing bubble. That said, I would updgrade my rig if I could - for videography, 4K 60fps - a long lasting battery pack, HDMI screen connection possibilities, along with access to dedicated lenses are practical tools I certainly would like to have access to. A more debatable point would be fast autofocus, which would be good for tracking small fast-moving subjects in a shallow DOF (think blackwater/bonfire videos) - but it isn't clear if the tracking technology is there yet for video... And for postproduction, image quality would be increased with 10bit capture, and something like manual white-balance qualities of a Canon camera would certainly be nice for ambient light. On the action-cam front, I still haven't upgraded the GoPro7 - there again, 10bit would be nice, but it's low priority given how little I shoot with it these days. So yes, these are feeding my desire to upgrade, and have been for some time. What's holding me back are housing costs – even for a second-hand old model, it's still very steep in my current situation. While I can't decently upgrade the rig, I do have the chance to be in a situation at this point in my life where I can dive with my old and limited rig very regularly. And film at will. A little fiddling with the rig (there's always something) usually does wonder for soothing the GAS urge to update. Practical accessories for one's existing camera rig fall in this sort intermediary space, offering something new to something you already use, which can be rejuvenating... On a larger scale, this constant state of dissatisfaction isn't limited to product consumption and aquisition. It's something that weighs on our lives in general, as we plan and think ahead, and thinking ahead also often means having something wish for or look forward to (the next holidays, a paid off mortgage, a better job, retirement...). It's easy to be always projecting on the future rather than making the most of the present. Marketing stategies simply tap into this urge, by offering quick fixes – which are usually never good enough.... I really like the idea of buying better water, or buying more time in the water. If you think about it, what would make the most difference, buying a new camera, or doubling/tripling/quadrupling the time spent shooting with your current rig? What do you think would give you the most satisfaction overall? Of course, if you have the ressources to do both and keep both your kidneys, just go for it! 😆
-
La Paz, Spring 2025
Really beautiful footage - brings back memories of my time working there, and fun seeing what i think is the Fang-Ming, and a grumpy bull again! I also like the colours, did you manual white-balance at depth on the Sony A7siii? cheers ben
-
Shooting action-cams with a "red" filter in flat profile, and manually white-balancing in post-production
To wrap it up, I would argue that shooting in ambient light with (well designed, appropriate) filter still gives better results than in camera software WB/colour correction, despite amazing technological advances made. Even in 2025, this should be the go-to method for getting a good colour balance when shooting underwater in ambient light on action cams and/or cameras not capable of manually white-balancing at depth, when working within the following set of parameters: 1. you will work on the footage in post production to reset the white-balance point - working in post is a must for ambient light footage at scuba diving depths anyway. Beyond grading, the main “work” with action-cams will be resetting the white balance post in post-production, rather than at depth as you would do when working with a manual WB capable camera . So yes, using filters on non-manual white-balance capable cameras is NOT a good way to get good results Straight Out Of Camera, since you will need to at minimum rebalance the footage in post. This is a major difference with using filters on cameras capable of manually white-balancing at depth, where the SOOC result will already be white-balanced and good as is. The action-cam workflow implies rebalancing in post. 2. you are shooting in “flat” or flatish profile - ie. limiting what the camera will try to do in-camera through software correction. This is essential for grading the footage afterwards, and avoiding odd hues generated by the cameras “underwater modes when setting the white-balance in post, which usually boost the red channels (degrading the image and rendering it difficult to grade when it comes to colour balance). Another issue being potential variations of colour balance/ treatment within a sequence, which you wouldn't have when locking the adjustments. Not a problem for stills, but definitely a problem for video. 3. you are shooting within the underwater ambient light “Goldilocks zone” – this varies depending on location and local conditions, but can be defined as a depth where ambient sunlight filtration becomes so strong that the camera will struggle with white-balance and colour, yet a depth which still offers enough light to get good results in post as seen in the examples posted above. Typically, for strong sunlight locations like the tropics, this would be below 5m (above which water's filtration effect is so weak that the camera can handle the wb changes), and usually down to roughly 20m, stretching to 25-30m depth in very strongly lit clear water locations. 8m-15m is usually the depth range where ambient light works the best. Beyond depth, you also need enough workable ambient light. A filter will make the camera lose stops of light, typically 1 to 2.5 stops, which is a big tradeoff, but worth it when shooting at the right depth range / conditions. Usually around 20m+, things begin to breakdown both because of the lack of light (=noise, less contrast) and increased filtering effect of sea water (less colour info making it to the sensor) 4. You are using a good filter, ie. one which is well designed to do the job properly – the job typically being – in blue water - cutting cyan/greens while letting deeper blues through, and warming up the image hitting the sensor, which will help the camera white balance correctly being mitigating sea water’s filtering effect on sunlight, either manually at depth or in post-production . Shooting in green water, the filter should be different, typically more magenta, taking into account the difference in sea water’s filtering effect. Typical well designed filters will have a fluorofilter like effect on the spectrum, examples being UR-Pro (no longer made), Keldan, Magic… Keep in mind that many "red" filters on the market do not seem to have been designed with a proper understanding of how it works and what the filter is supposed to do, beyond "warming"... it's just not a question of slapping a red piece of plastic on the lens and calling it a day... 5. You are shooting in full ambient light, or, in a mixed-lighting scenario, with filtered artificial light (ambient filters on the video lights, in order to emulate water’s filtration effect and even out spectrum difference between ambient and artificial light, see the Keldan system or other approaches along those lines). If shooting in an artificial light dominant scenario, just drop the filter. Same goes for the shallows, in the 0-5m depth range for instance. Just keep in mind that there are many ways to do this wrong, even with good material. Grading and colours are highly subjective of course, but as an example, this auto-white balance Ace360 + filtered artificial light clip is an interesting illustration of a failed approach to the problems are play. There are plenty of others out there, most stemming from auto-white balance and in-camera corrections... To make it clear, more than using a filter, the most important point of this ambient light action-cam workflow's is actually working in a flat profile and resetting the WB in post. This is the key. Adding a good filter will improve white-balance results, be it in post-production for action cams or at depth for manual white-balance capable cameras. And yet within this set of parameters, shooting flat ambient light footage with a filter will give you great workable results, often superior to unfiltered, in-camera adjusted ambient footage in terms of colour balance. This is especially true on action cams currently incapable of manually setting a white-balance point at depth. Let’s dig into the reasons why this is the case. 1. The problem with in-camera software white-balance correction underwater Ok, so we’re in a situation, in our day and age, where cameras have software corrections capable of doing a great many incredible things. So why - despite the marketing and consensus stating that filters-are-a-thing-of-the-past, are filtered footage results still generally better than in-camera software-corrected results in terms of colour balance? Why are filters still used by blue-chip professional production, but are seen as passé in the amateur / semi-pro world? Well, if you try to work on in-camera software corrected footage, and attempt to fine tune white balance or grade the footage, by setting the WB point in post on an easy white/grey target (sand, diver’s tank, bubbles, bleached coaral etc) you'll often end up with a weird red or magenta peak and a weird colour balance. I've done this a lot. Many times, I've tried editing unfiltered, non-flat GoPro footage from colleagues in locations where I was working. It’s bad, and just doesn't work. Rebalancing white balance makes colour balance fall apart, so you have to work with what you have, which limits possible adjustments. This happens mainly because the camera software boosts the red channels in an attempt to correct for the underwater blue cast on ambient light. This creates a dual problem for us: • The camera is artificially boosting the reds, which degrades image quality. • There's generally still a strong cast (often cyan/green/blue), and if there isn't (eg. "underwater mode"), the colour palette isn't very balanced or natural looking. When setting WB at depth or in post, you're saying "this area should be gray/white", which should lead to canceling out the blue/cyan cast. But if the reds in the footage are already over-boosted by in-camera softwae correction, the result is unnatura, with all sorts of strange magenta horrors, etc. 2. Why shooting flat and/or using a filter generally works better in ambient light situations If the footage had been shot in a flat colour profile, the reds wouldn't have been boosted, allowing a cleaner WB correction, and colour balance, without magenta distortion issues. This is obvious when shooting stills in RAW mode for instance, which is standard for still photography. A flat (or flat-ish) colour profile will allow you to work on those reds, magentas manually in post, without having to deal with varying baked-in colour corrected footage. Even better, using a well designed physical warming filter on the camera (like UR-Pro or equivalent) acts on the ambient light before it hits the camera sensor: • The sensor records a warmer image, reducing the need for software correction. • With a good filter that still allows deep blues to pass through (eg. fluorofilter type profile), you end up, after resetting the WB point, with a warmer, more neutral, and more accurately balanced image than you would without a filter. Deep blues in the background are preserved, while the foreground gains accurate tone, making for a more natural looking, balanced image. This is especially important because setting underwater WB is really about how much “stretching” has to be done to deal with the filtering effects of sea water on ambient light. The more WB stretching is required, the more image degradation you'll have. A physical filter on the camera works by reducing the amount of stretching required to rebalance the image To summarise, filters mechanically "warm" the ambient light-lit image before it reaches the sensor. This: • Enables better manual WB capacities at depth or in post • Avoids needing baked-in software corrections from the camera, which are hard to work with in post in post. • Will give you more depth – the filter’s effect will extend to deeper in the image, meaning you lose background colour further away, and with less of a drastic drop than software correction The main dowside being, of course, the infamous loss of stops of light, which can certainly be a deal breaker in certain shooting conditions. In contrast, software-based in-camera colour correction: • Manipulates individual colour channels, with results that can be good or bad • Often leads to baked-in artefacts and hues, and uneven colour balance/palette • Degrades the footage , making difficult to work with in post • Is not stable, and can vary within a sequence, which is problematic 3. Limits of filter use and manual white-balance setting (at depth or in post-production) As already mentioned above, even with a good filter: • In clear well lit waters (tropics for instance), the filter's effects typically break down beyond 20–30 metres depth in good conditions. • You can still set WB, but the colour cast becomes too strong, and image balance collapses. You would need a stronger filter, but then you would lose to much ambient light, which itself becomes rarer the deeper you go ... Catch-22... • So after a certain point, there’s less ambient light, and the filtering effect of seawater becomes too strong - setting WB in these conditons (at depth or in post) just stretches the channels too much, leading to distortion, like when working without a filter. In such stiuations, it's best to accept the colour cast or to work in artificial light. • When shooting in the shallows, say at snorkeling depths, the water’s filtering effect on sunlight is mild, and working on filtered footage at such depths will mean actually cancelling out the filter’s effects to set the white balance – it's possible, but really there’s no reason to shoot with a filter in the shallows, especially since required hue corrections will degrade the image. • Available ambient light to work with. In some sea conditions, there’s just not enough ambient light to work with a filter. In this case, as at depth, it’s best to accept the colour cast on the ambiet light footage and work with that, or use artificial light • Filter design vs. sea water qualities. Most filters are designed for blue/cyan water, which is ambient-light paradise, and thus not ideal for greener waters. Because cyan-filters cut off greens, if much green is cut, the water may end up looking unnaturally coloured, and the balance may be off compared to using a purpose-designed green water filter. UR-Pro did have a green water filter, as does Keldan if I recall correctly. These need to be experimented with, but since greener waters are usually darker ones, the light-related linitations mentioned above might also come into play. To conclude, one could say that letting camera software handle underwater colour correction is like trying to shoot on land using coloured lighting and expecting the camera to fix everything digitally. On land, beyond setting the kelvins to best match your light source, if the light used has too much of a colour cast, you would probably add a lighting gel to adjust it or just simply change the light, rather than letting the camera try to get rid of the cast for you through some sort of software adjustement... Well, this is what a physicial filter on the camera is doing underwater in ambient light, with our own water-filtered light source (the sun). Sunlight at depth if a filtered light source, with a cast. Most modern camera can handle a light cast (say in the shallows), sure. But when dealing with strong blue/green/cyan cast (eg. 10m depth or so), it is still best - even in 2025 - to physically act on the cast itself than try to let the camera handle it, and will give you more workeable footage in post, and generally better results overall. Voilà, I hope others find this approach useful, even if it's seen as a outdated, and thing of the past. Just try it for yourself, but do it right. It works. Cheers! Ben
-
Shooting action-cams with a "red" filter in flat profile, and manually white-balancing in post-production
Yes, the Lee Dark Salmon is the best contender out there. As detailled in the UR-Pro filter thread, the UR-Pro cyan spectrum profile is basically that of a fluorofilter, a type of filter that were designed to "Convert U.S. Cool White or Daylight type fluorescent lamps to 3200K photographic tungsten and remove the excess green." to quote Rosco. The issue is that fluorescent lights have been phased out by LED lights, rendering fluorofilters obsolete in the lighting world. The Lee 08 Dark Salmon (LDS) is a good alternative. It was actually already tested in water and works fine, but with some caveats: As I wrote in the UR-Pro thread after the side by side comparison, it is stronger / darker (and a bit warmer) than the UR-Pro - meaning a little more loss of light / ev, and also a slightly deeper tint in the reds - this is visible when looking at the camera's ISO sensor data, with a higher ISO on the LDS. Yet what this also means is that, as expected, the Lee gel actually works somewhat better than the UR-Pro when going deeper, but this is a give and take, as it means a greater loss of light - which could be fine in the tropics, less so elsewhere. Handling of the blues is also a little different, as seen in compared curves: A fluorofilter profile like the 3310's is closer to the UR-Pro's original profile, in fact almost identical. There are probably other fluorofilter gels still available out there somewhere, the key is to find one with a curve the closest to that of UR-Pro cyan filter, detailled in the dedicated thread here https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/1414-ur-pro-filters-info The logic is pretty straightforward, sea water filtrates sunlight and has a cooling effect, adding green / cyan. A fluorofilter is specifically designed to mitigate this. Yet as you can see on the graph above - and this is where a fluorofilter is different from a simple green-cutting filter, it still lets deeper blues through (= nice seawater blue). Just look at the flat SOOC flat GoPro video footage capture posted above: You can actually see the filter at work. Image has a warm cast, greens/cyans are cut (which is what usually sticks out on unbalanced ambient light footage shot without a filter...) BUT, very importantly, the deeper blues are still there. Rebalancing the image in post (by setting the white balance point, as you would normally do underwater, at depth using a slate with a manual WB capable camera) is made easy, and the results are more balanced. Rebalanced image after setting the WB point in post: Footage is then colour graded to taste: It's an efficient work around for getting good colours UW in ambient light out of action cams, because these cameras can't manually white-balance at depth (which is standard procedure for shooting underwater video) And beyond Canon-colour magic (where the camera's handling of manual wb / colour palette is somewhat like having a built-in filter), I'm still a big believer in the utility of filters to get more balanced, natural looking ambient light UW video footage at diving depths. The trade off is in stops of light of course, but for typical ambient light shooting depths, it's practical in most locations with enough sunlight to do so. However, the technical key points - and reason I opened this thread to begin with - to achieve this on an action cam are to use a well designed filter with the characteristics mentioned above (lets blues through, cuts greens/cyans, warms), to shoot in flat profile (to stop the action cam from trying to adjust things on its own, which it struggles to do at diving depth with filtered sunlight), and to set the white balance point in post-production. I've been experimenting with this technique since the GoPro4. No point waiting for the GoPro21, Ace 720 or DJI Action10, or the next miracle in action-cam colour handling at diving depth. This just works. cheers! ben
-
Shooting action-cams with a "red" filter in flat profile, and manually white-balancing in post-production
I haven't updated this thread in a while, but have been experimenting with UR-Pro filter replacements on my (indestructible) GoPro 7 black. It's now paired with an AOI UWL-03 wide lens (old model), and, after a bit of trial and error detailed in this thread, now filtered by a Rosco fluorofilter gel placed inside the housing. The current rig looks like this, minus the AOI lens (I use the AOI handle on a ball mount, which allows for better shooting positions and storage - most of the time I shoot as is, with the handle on left side, and my right hand directly on the housing, which works great). The filter gel is inside the GoPro Supersuit housing (but got a little wrinkled on install unfortunately, as you can see on the pic) This particular fluorofilter gel is very close to the lengendary UR-Pro Cyan, as explained in the thread linked above. It works really well in blue water in the optimal ambient light zone of 5 to 15m, and can be stretched a little above or below depending on light conditions. I haven't been diving with the GoPro that much, but after an initial first test a few months back in super shallow water - really too shallow for a filter - (clip here ) I finally did some proper dives with it yesterday, and the results are nice, and fine for grading in post, with the filter really coming to its own around 10-15m (there wasn't enough sunlight to shoot below 20m yesterday). These are captures from the GoPro7 video footage (4K, 60fps, wide), shot at around 10m on the GoPro7 with the AOI UWL-03 lens Blue water, average viz (15m) with particules in the water and quite overcast. This is at 10m, the blurry spot on center left comes from damage to the filter gel itself mentioned above. I the water in Okinawa is very blue, so I would probably actually desaturate the blues a little (hue vs sat) for a more moderate balance in the final clip, but this illustrates what I have to work with. The colour range of the coral is very natural, identical to what you'd see in the shallows (Indonesia this is not) As stated above, there wasn't enough sundlight to work in ambient below 20m in yesterday's overcast conditions (not enough light = too much noise below 20m), but this is a shot of a blotched fantail ray / ribbontail ray swimming under me at 25m (bottom is a 40m plus). While using filters seem like a thing of the past, I still find that for filtered ambient light footage, shot in a flat profile and rebalanced in post is the way to get the most out of action cameras. While shooting filterless works fine in the shallows, I've never been able to emulate these kind of results without a filter at diving depth, at least not with the same colour balance. Keep in mind water is a itself a filter on our ambient light source (the sun) and this causes action cam colour palette to be way off the deeper we go, whereas filtered footage helps regain a more pleasing, natural balance on these cameras incapable of manual white balance at depth. The key is to shoot in flat or as flat as possible with the filter, then reset the white balance in post before grading. It's quite magical. Here's a little walkthrough of the process on one of the video captures. Straight out of camera (SOOC) flat footage looks like this: (the balance is already not bad, but there is a warm colour cast. This warm colour cast is actually a desirable one, since it will help restore a more even/balanced colour palette when setting the white-balance point) I then set the white-balance point (rebalance the image) in post, which also corrects the colour cast: (this replicates, in post, what you would do at depth with a camera capable of manual white-balancing at depth. The filter has helped us obtain a more balanced image by mitigating the water's filtering effect on sunlight ) I then proceed to grade the footage to taste: (here's a less saturated alternative to the one I posted above) or if you want to pop the saturation a little, working from pre-balanced (filter) flat footage gives you latitude to do so, even on the ancient GoPro7... Imagine what it would be on 10bit footage! However, actual filter quality is essential, and filters are far from universal. My favourite filter on the Lumix LX10, the Keldan SF-1.5, doesn't work well on action cams, as it's too weak, and best reserved for cameras capable of manual white balance - same goes for Magic Filters. Unfortunately, many commercially available filters are really not designed by people having looked into filtering characteristics and are just very bad (Polar Pro etc), and also used by people not shooting in flat and rebalancing the footage in post, which tended to give filters a bad-name. A filter like the beloved, proven UR-Pro, or others with a similar fluorofilter profile, really works best for this kind of approach. *** So here we are... It works. This is not a "get the best footage SOOC approach. But I really think that when shooting in ambient light working on the footage in post is just an integral part of the process, and has to be taken into account. Artificial light (video lights, strobes...) dominant shooting is more forgiving and can be great SOOC, but for ambient light, you have to make some adjustements at some point to get a good colour balance. And this is even more important for cameras which can't manually white balance at depth, like our current action camera range. This is where the shoot in flat profile and manually set the white balance in post workflow really works well to get around this limitation. And adding a good filter to the mix will help when setting the white balance point, counterbalancing the filter on our light source (water on sunlight, of which you need plenty of for full ambient light shots), as seen above. This results in a more even aesthetically pleasing colour palette, without the odd hues or dayglo colours you often see on action cam footage shot in "auto" mode, where you let the camera try to adjust the colour at depth... I would really like to try this approach on more recent generations action cameras - especially with 10bit colour - so we can compare filtered and unfiltered end results, and see if filters are really a thing of the past for action cams at scuba diving depths... cheers ben
-
UR-Pro filters info?
As a follow-up, I've had the opportunity to test the R3310 in proper diving conditions yesterday, one some Okinawa main island's west coast sites (Hôshu Kita / Toilet Bowl, Uguigama and Apogama/Mermaid's Grotto) Parameters were a depth up to 25m, blue water, average viz (15m) with particules in the water and overcast. Results are fine for grading, with the filter really coming to its own around 10-15m - there wasn't enough sunlight to shoot below 20m yesterday. These are captures from the GoPro video footage, shot at around 10m on the GoPro7 (yes, you read that correctly 🧟...), with the AOI UWL-03 (old model) lens (4K, 60fps, wide) The blurry spot on the left comes from damage to the filter gel itself (wrinkled when I inserted it into the supersuit housing) As stated above, there wasn't enough sundlight to work in ambient below 20m in yesterday's overcast conditions, but this is a shot of a blotched fantail ray / ribbontail ray swimming under me at 25m (bottom is a 40m plus) So yes, the gel for is very usueable for imaging purposes, even if it isn't "optical grade" cheers ben
-
RED Helium vs Canon R5 Mark II vs Canon 1DX Mark II - in the field comparison
Thanks for taking the time to do this and share this write up Jero! Grading is always very subjective, but yes, on the tests I really find the R5II end results the most pleasing as well. When working in ambient light, I’ve always been impressed by Canon colour science in general - my untested theory is that it while might not be the most accurate, Canon's handling of custom wb allows you to get a colour palette that is aesthetically very pleasing for UW work, something about the way it handles warm hues while preserving blues/cyans, if that makes sense... Actual colour accuracy would need to be tested in sterile conditions with a macbeth chart or similar, but results ("Canon colours") are really quite magical. Your conclusions on the RED Helium are very interesting as well. Brings to mind pics I've seen of rigs used by bluechip productions (BBC crew BTS footage for instance), where operators work mostly in ambient light or filtered mixed lighting to get as close to ambient light as possible. I think they still use a filter on the camera lens in quite a few ambient situations on cinema cameras. This seems a little anachronistic since you lose stops of light, and the colour science + grading possibilities are massive these days, but could also align with the struggles you mentioned on the RED. It would be really interesting to compare bare results with results obtained with manual wb + a good filter like the Keldan SF-2, see if this helps the camera adjust for manual WB or not really, especially at good ambient depth of 10m or so. Really interesting technical note on codec choices as well. I imagine broadcasters usually require ungraded footage to be worked on in-house, hence the need for a workable dynamic range and colour depth. This also reminds me that as amazing as the footage is on recent BBC underwater documentaries (Blue Planet etc), I’m really not a great fan of the super saturated, often exotic grading colourists seem to come up with these days (which I believe is linked to streaming and phones as primary display devices, attention grabbing all that…). It's sometimes a little strange to see footage shot in ambient light or aiming to recreate ambient light conditions with filtered Keldans be given this kind of treatment. But maybe I'm just old ˆˆ As a sidenote, I could watch the clips on vimeo without being logged in to my account for some reason, seems to work from Japan. And it’s great to see mantas are still around at La Reina! I was working in LaPaz in 2018 when the mantas came back and stayed, after what had been only very limited sightings for a long while… Only time in my life I got to see sealions and mantas swimming together, even with a juvenile whaleshark join in the fun once. Golden memories, and I’m happy they decided to stick around apparently! cheers ben
-
Hello from Mexico
Welcome Jero, really happy to have you onboard. I’ve been following your work and Pelagic Life for a few years now, and it’s inspiring, including the impact you’ve made. Looking forward to sharing ideas and learning from your experience. Cheers! Ben
-
VANUATU LEADING THE CHARGE FOR GLOBAL CLIMATE JUSTICE
Thank you for sharing this and for your tireless commitment, John. Your work and passion are powerful. Documenting the local effects of the climate crisis and enabling this kind of testimony couldn’t be more important.
-
Quick Summary of Compact Camera Choices
Thanks Chris, that totally makes sense and explains a lot! Just goes to show — don’t judge a book by its cover… or a compact by its long zoom lens! 😁
-
Quick Summary of Compact Camera Choices
Yes, the RX100 VII looked very promising for macro but so far the best RX100 macro footage I've seen seems to be shot on the RX100Va for some reason... If this helps, I can reach macro on a 1" sensor compact, the LX10 (max 72mm zoom), with a powerful diopter like the CMC-1 (+15) or AOI UCL-09 (+12.5) or lens stacks (if I could budget it I would get the AOI +18) - this is for video, not stills. The V1 has a larger sensor, which will loses some of the smaller sensor benefits.
-
Sony announced the ultimate compact camera today,… but pricy SONY RX1R III
Wow. Thanks for this, but yes, no thanks... As much as I am (or was) a compact enthusiast, on the video front I’m still sticking with my now ten-year-old Lumix LX10. I got a compact because it was the most financially accessible manual video tool for my dive-pro budget — the Nauticam housing tray pack was around $1,200 USD at the time, to which I added wet optics and, eventually, lights for medium to macro work. It’s still the rig I dive with to this day — though a little souped-up like a hot rod these days, which somewhat contradicts the whole idea of a “compact form factor.” Anyway, such is life. Limitations of this 10 year old compact? Oh, plenty, of course. The main physical ones I run into are lenses (ah, to have a real macro lens instead of working with a zoom + strong diopter combo to reach macro…), battery packs to extend battery life (so crucial for video, but no room in a compact housing), and an option to rig an HDMI screen for my weary eyes. Software-wise, I miss the now-ubiquitous 4K 60fps (I’m not a slow-mo fan, but 50% speed is a useful tool), and then there’s... AF. AF for video isn’t crucial (I shoot in manual), but it does come into play for tracking small, fast-moving subjects — think blackwater or bonfire videos, for instance — where adjusting focus manually means losing a sequence. Despite the amazing demos in some videos — like the one above, where it seems you could track a subject’s nostril hair while skateboarding — the unmentioned fact is that video AF is a totally different beast, and there’s no way to know how it would actually work for moving pictures (which also means needing unicorn-like video-optimised lenses that can keep up...). This fast video AF, a specialist application, is still mostly a chimera. With the possible exception of the Sony lineup (to be confirmed… the internet remains suspiciously free of solid video AF tracking examples). Oh, and then there’s general image quality, of course, which is relative, all that. And all of that said, as others have frequently reminded us, smaller sensors are often an advantage for UW video. My upgrade (again, video only) when the stars do align would be an APS-C body like a Canon or Sony (a6700, or, giving up on AF dreams, the FX30). So, for now, for better or worse, the aging LX10 lives on. It's a workeable tool. And yes, I do love the idea of purchasing better water, or at least more time in it! cheers
-
YouTube quality issue ?
It's not you, Kristin. It's a broader trend, sometimes called enshittification. One of the downsides of our ultra-connected world is how human interaction has been stripped of its substance. This forum format we're exchanging on is a blast from the past — a time capsule for us online old-timers, boogieing like it's 2005 again. It's also an island of genuine content sharing and discussion, the kind that's becoming increasingly rare online
-
How Ryo Minemizu captures the hidden wonders of the ocean at night - DPReview Article on Blackwater Diving
Yes - I think there's two float arms under the tray, and the Inon arm mounted to the right side one. Also I'm not 100% sure but I think on of the video lights are on the bottom tray (and linked to the centrally mounted remote), but the strobes are on the two arms. Interesting to see he's got diffusers on the video lights as well, not super common!
-
How Ryo Minemizu captures the hidden wonders of the ocean at night - DPReview Article on Blackwater Diving
Great find, thanks! The rig itself seems fairly standard for a mixed stills / video rig, but the tray section is intriguing. Looks like the Inon light is mounted at the bottom? Too bad it's not exactly the same one used in the clip. His Blackwater dive© setup, with multiple low intensity (1000 lumen) lights is very intriguing. He's doing this mostly on Kume island, but I've heard he's organised things on Okinawa main island, Cape Maeda specifically. Really fascinating work, and local as well for me - too bad these masterclass setups (like Horiguchi's Hori Nights) are way over my head budget-wise.
-
Your Tough Dive sites - Tell us about your local dive site
I think I'm going to have nightmares tonight... So is it a no-camera zone except on specific days, or do some die-hards manage to pull it off with a rig anyway?