bghazzal

Thanks Craig! My bright red focus peaking is a lifeline, just get it as red as possible and try to keep it that way 😄 cheers b

Thanks for the clarification Chris - this is what I had initially understood as well, which is why Big Blue's and Orcatorch's answers to my enquiries seemed a little off... Totally agree for the cheap lights, they are cheap for a reason, and have a very short lifespan due to poor design and components... But just to be precise, non-constant output light are not limited to such disposable, non-branded semi-direct imports sold on aliexpress/alibaba/amazon/ebay plateforms. Non-constant output lights are also the most common in the mid-range, including commonly found video light brands sold by reputable retailers such as: - BigBlue - SUPE / Scubalamp / Fotocore / Divevolk These are widely-used mid-range products - not exactly falling in the cheap light category - and are also not constant output lights - as are models by many other light common brands of variable reputation ( Orcatorch, Archon, Nitescuba, Xtar, Tovatec, XLight...) It would be interesting to know if Backscatter's video lights, such as the one included in the Backscatter Hybrid Flash or the MW4300 have the circuitry required to provide constant output or not - I couldn't find test data. The MW4300 - which I use - is a well designed light, with nice features and a tight 85° beam in wide mode, but also some surprising design choices such as low CRI LED modules (CRI of 71.1 in wide and 70.3 in spot mode), so it's not very clear what to expect in this respect...

Interesting thanks - I don’t have enough electrical knowledge to pinpoint the exact mecanism at play (maybe others can chime in), however one thing is clear: - the vast majority of LED dive lights / video lights do not have constant light / lumen output, which means that most dive / video lights will dim as the battery runs down. Schematically speaking, variable output lights dim to preserve battery, whereas constant output lights remain at the same brightness until the battery dies. This can be checked by empirical testing with the lights, and also by looking at available test data. Overall, it's pretty clear that unless the manufacturer states that the light has constant output (or even better, provides burn tests), it’s safe to assume it doesn’t and will dim as the battery runs down - incidently, most lower to mid-range manufacturers do not mention the output or back it up by tests, whereas in the higher end segment this is more common. As mentioned, is pretty easy to verify by running the light at maximum output in a tub of water and taking pictures at the same exposure settings, to see if there is a change in light intensity (our eyes adapt too easily to light intensity, whereas a camera sensor will be a more impartial judge...) If the light has constant output, the intensity will remain the same same until the battery can no longer provide enough power to do so, and then it will drop quickly. This feature is important, as it means that this will give the videographer a set window of usage, during which the light will provide a stable light, and the lumen output it is supposed to. Otherwise, we also have the data from more scientific lumen output tests. The Kraken burn test included in their docs for instance, show a rather constant output over the burn time: And this is corroborated by more slightly more independent testing, such as this site (owned by Light and Motion, but test methodology is given in the FAQ). Here is an output test on a Weefine model: https://www.wetestlights.com/test.html?docId=0uB0YFsc1Z1e5xw7OX0E Or on a Light & Motion / Sola light, here: https://www.wetestlights.com/test.html?docId=5I5Z4eZ8Y8bA8OFfNja2 However, unfortunately, this important feature is not commonly found in most LED dive lights. And if the light is not designed with to ensure constant ouput, then the light will start dimming as soon as the battery starts discharging. While I don't really know enough to understand the exact mechanism at play (constant voltage driver? I've read that the issue might be linked to not including constant output emitters - maybe others can offer explanations), the results are quite clear. Without the type of control circuit required to ensure a constant output as shown above, the burn test curve will look like this test of Big Blue TL2800P light here: https://www.wetestlights.com/test.html?docId=9pPEJyoiJaUNjmRz6KJ1 or this Orcatorch D550 test here: Such curves are well, much less sexy... And empirically, taking pictures at a regular interval at a set exposure will show the light dimming right from the begining of the test... As an example, here are pictures of such a bucket-test of a Big Blue VTL9000P light showing the dimming... Unfortunately for us end users, this is actually the most common design found in underwater LED video lights (and also dive lights), especially in the lower to mid-range. And alas, manufacturers are also not really transparent about this... This is the answer I got today from Big Blue regarding the output of their COB video lights: "For our products, we have built-in control circuit which the light will dim constantly once the battery drop to keep one and half burn time" which is, well, not the clearest I've read... But correlate this with the BigBlue light test above gives an idea of what to expect on lights of their range... Another user had an exchange with Big Blue regarding this issue as well - Scubaboard thead here In the video-light segment - where this feature is quite important as it allows us to shoot reliably at constant exposure - makers offering confirmed constant output lights are as follows, for the time being: - Keldan - Light and Motion (Sola) - Sealife - Kraken - Weefine There probably are others, but it's not easy to have access to this type of product info, which is regrettable... And the situation is similar for standard dive lights actually, where most low to mid range lights will be non-constant output, but higher end models (Apeks for instance, and others, Dive Rite, Dive Gear Express see here) offer constant output - which an important feature to ensure a consistent light intensity over a given run-time in artificially-lit overhead environments such as cave or wreck diving...

Thanks Diggy! Yeah, I'm there as well, and quite the sight with my UW-readers, I'm sure 😅

As an update, Weefine has confirmed that their Smart Focus light range does have a control circuit and is constant output / discharge. They also indicated that Kraken lights were previously produced by Weefine, meaning that Kraken lights - which have now evolved into distinct, independently manufactured products - are based the same design. I'm waiting for Weefine's test data for the Smart Focus lights.

Thank you - it's all very fresh and still a good-way to go I think 😄 Well spotted for the exposure - I don't actually have auto-ISO on the camera - while settings are very close to the GH series, auto-ISO wasn't included in the mix - so this was all shot in manual at 125 ISO. Most critters were actually moving up and down in the water-column, so I was yo-yo'ing more than any self-respecting instructor should - even on nitrox - and I think what you're seeing is actually coming from depth/lighting change in manual mode. Boosting the power of my available artificial lighting should fix this by overpowering more of the ambient light I hope (that or focusing on critters doing more reasonable dive profiles 😁)

Thanks John - once I have a general idea of what I can use work with, I look for music to edit to, playing some clips with different sound proposal, see what works best for me - I then present the idea to a severe and more often than not grumpy commission, my wife's eyes and ears, see if she validates it or not. We're both former musicians, which doesn't really make it easier 😅 But all of this is probably a little futile in our day and age where a lot of videos are played on phones with sound off 😁

Thanks - I'm really getting into this kind of critters now, that and juvenile / larval forms, it's like a whole new world opening up, a candybox of shapes and motion - but not easy to access or record... and so much is up to conditions... 😅

If this helps, you can also forward the letters / emails to the Mexican Secretary of Tourism, which is the government department in charge of Mexico’s tourism promotion and development policy for national tourist activity and development zones (in conjunction with local Mexican states). The Mexican Secretary of Tourism's physical address is: Secretaría de Turismo Avenida Presidente Masaryk 172 Bosques de Chapultepec 11580 Ciudad de México MEXICO and this is their email address: [email protected] More info here https://www.gob.mx/sectur/en#198 and here http://www.sectur.gob.mx/ cheers b

Here's a little something I shot last week, just two days after the full-moon on the shores of the Lombok Strait in east Bali. Going to my usual critter hunting spot, I expected to spend the dive on the black sand as usual. But as I reached the edge of the plateau and the sandy-slope facing the deep waters of the strait, my attention was instantly caught byweird critters floating around everywhere, including quite a few jewels I'd never seen before... Water was quite clear, with a mild current, and I spent the whole dive hovering and drifting with the plankton, then returning to the same area and drifting again with a new subject. Wee! An exciting and fascinating day-dive - for someone in love larval and planktonic lifeforms at least 😅 - challenging, but a welcome change from the area's usual macro suspects ! Technically, shooting in the shallows in full-tropical morning light, I reached the limits of my 5000-ish lumen light supply (a single Backscatter MW4300 4000 lm + 2 Archons 1000 lm), so I experimented with light positioning, including black-backround type shots, to try to make up for that. Clearly what I was really really missing in this kind of shooting scenario was a powerful secondary light, and this has convinced me to invest in more artificial light in the near future, which should definitely help! I shot with +6 diopter and even went up +12.5, as some were quite tiny, manual focus as usual, 30fps. There's a definite learning curve as the critters are so light that body and camera movements affect them greatly for instance, and what worked best for filming was really hovering motionless and letting the current carry us along... A great dive overall where i drained the camera battery, and really good practice for bonfire-type shallow black-water shooting I plan on doing here as well. Equipment used: - Panasonic Lumix LX10 (LX9/LX15 in some locales) compact camera in a NALX10 Nauticam housing, AOI UCL-09 +18.5 diopter, Inon UCL-165M67 +6 diopter - Backscatter MW 4300 video light and two Archon D11V2 video lights - Shot in Amed, east Bali, in 4K 30fps, CineD profile cheers! ben

As an update Kraken have confirmed that all their lights above 2500 lumens are all COB and are all constant current / output On the Weefine/Kraken front, Kraken also specified that while they did share a factory with Weefine in the past, in the last several years Kraken has had its own factory and make their own lights, which would explain why the product ranges have now diverged so much. As a side note, from looking at quite a few products in the range, Kraken now seems to offer well thought-out products with important features where you want them: COB, constant output, decent battery design, and importantly tighter beam angles. Aah, beam-angles... Like constant output, video light beam angle is one of those things where a lack of customer education is letting manufacturers get away with a few cut corners... Online, most mid-range video light manufacturers (and their favorite influencer-mouthpieces, such is the twisted world we now live in...😅) will tout their super "wide beam" (typically 120°, sometimes even wider...) as a positive feature (perfect for video! will cover a wider area!) - when this is actually a by-product of poor reflector design / choices, and more often than not a way to lower costs... Most people here on WaP will already be aware of this, but since this thread is about important video light specs left out or, in this case, misrepresented by manufacturers, here's a reminder: for video - in most real world applications - you actually want a tighter beam (say 90°, 100° angle...) as this will simply give you more more light for a given lumen output. As often stated here, for the same lumen output a 90° beam angle will give roughly twice as much light falling on the subject than a 120° beam. And with the typical 2-light setup used in UW videography, two 90° beam lights will actually provide full coverage for lens with less than a 130° field of view (which goes for action cams, rectilinear lenses and WWL/WACP type lenses etc...). Meaning that for video lights, that super-duper "extra wide" beam is actually more a design defect than a feature... 😉 I would say constant output and beam angle are the two most commonly misunderstood / misrepresented video light specs. We could go even further and offer that beyond wonky-named manufacturers dreaming up fantasy-world lumen outputs for their wonky-buttoned lights, in the slightly more reputable world of the branded mid-range, it's probably this double-whammy of dimming-on-discharge + diffusion by wider beam angles which accounts for a lot - if not most - of the "this video light is not as bright as what it should be given stated lumens" complains often heard about mid-range products... This is probably not what your pusher outlet's infomercial review or shill ambassador-influencer's predicable video will be discussing when you end up clicking on a that click trolling engagement-generating thumbnail showing an unavoidably puzzled facial expression, but hey, that's what prehistoric relics such as forums are for, right? 😎 Returning to constant current/discharge/output issue at hand, I've asked Weefine the same question, not finding the data online, and waiting for an answer. If anyone has info on this, please share. cheers! ben

Hi - I'd just like to signal that the edit timeline is currently much less than 24 hours - probably 8 hours I'd guess. Being a little clumsy, I often come back to posts to try to correct typos, formatting etc, and have had my fingers snapped by the deadline a few times (just did now actually, paragraph I'd added was zapped as the thread was now edit-locked in the meantime) It would be great to return to 24 hours editing deadline if possible 🙏 Thanks! b

While this was probably the case in the past, this doesn't actually seem to be the case anymore. The factory issuing the products is probably the same (likely also covering the X-Adventurer brand) but the product range is quite different now. Here is the Weefine video light range: Smart focus Solar flare And here is the Kraken video light range: Hydra and LTD While some products are still similar - and design seems to indicate that they might be produced all by the same factory - the specs and features are quite different across the two brands (Kraken products are generally heavier, for instance, and Weefine leaning towards a higher price tier) That said, if Kraken lights are constant output, I would imagine Weefine lights are as well, but couldn't find confirmation (Kraken specs are more detailed and precise). Here's an example of Kraken lumen output test data:

Hello all, Looking for a set of video lights fitting my criteria, I've been bobbing around in a whirlpool of brands and specs for the past few days... It's all good, but one important specification which is very difficult to pinpoint is constant output / power discharge for video lights, which requires a control circuit to make sure the light has a stable output. If not, the light dims as battery drains, which means a steady loss of light power, rather than a timed, but constant output. In practice, this is a rather crucial spec for shooting video, but also one which is generally left out of available documentation (an easy test is to discharge the lights in a tub while taking a picture, using same exposure settings, every 15 minutes, to check if brightness drops - but this requires having the lights at hand...) To help future buyers, I'd like to try to sum up information avaialble per brand, so that we have comprehensive list of video light manufacturers (and eventually models) offering constant output video lights, and those that don't. At first glance, constant output video lights are clearly quite rare - probably because most manufacturers are aiming to keep costs lower by skipping the control circuit, since constant output isn't a feature sought by many users, who simply consider it normal/inevitable for the light to dim as battery power diminishes... Based on what I've gathered online, we can kind of make out the following (please correct or add details as required) BRANDS OFFERING CONSTANT OUTPUT VIDEO LIGHTS - Keldan - Light and Motion (Sola) - Sealife - Kraken (output test data given in docs) BRANDS OFFERING NON-CONSTANT OUTPUT VIDEO LIGHTS - BigBlue - SUPE - Scubalamp - Fotocore - Divevolk - Nitescuba - Archon - Orcatorch - Xtar - Tovatec - XLight - Almost all the non-branded / semi-branded direct import lights found on Amazon, Ali-Express, Ebay, Shopee, etc. (e.g. LetonPower, Thrustfire, Wurkkos etc) TO BE CONFIRMED - Backscatter (MW4300 for instance) - Inon - Weefine - Dive-Adventurer - DivePro - FixNeo - RGBlue - iTorch **** cheers ben

Are you sure that Weefine or Kraken have constant output / discharge? I've been looking into this but cannot find any tests to back it up. edit - for Kraken I found manufacturer give output test data Thanks!

stay away, well away.... The "list" is at least partially a copy-paste of existing classified listings... The Nauticam/Panasonic LX10 with Dual Big Blue 15,000 Video Lights Complete System caught my eye as I've seen the listing on another forum. It was sold on June 3rd.... https://scubaboard.com/community/threads/nauticam-panasonic-lx10-with-dual-big-blue-15-000-lumen-complete-system.647094/ and the source of the Sony RX100VA with Nauticam housing and Z330 Strobes and WWL-C wide angle listing is here: https://scubaboard.com/community/threads/sony-rx100va-with-nauticam-housing-and-z330-strobes-and-wwl-c-wide-angle-2500.624506/ you get the drift....

Not sure about that unfortunately - if you look at the 2019 document, wording is 16% tax on "photo and video recording equipment", and the allowance is, IIRC, one camera per traveller, meaning customs could likely consider the gopro or other action cams as a second camera should they wish to do so. They were probably focusing primarily on the most expensive items until now, but with action cam prices on the rise, and given how zealously the laws seemed to be applied given recent feedback (with reports of dive gear and golf clubs being taxed for instance) I wouldn't count on it if one is caught in the taxation whirlpool... But yes, best stay as inconspicuous as possible and hope for the green light...

I do the same, and have had to do it quite a few times actually, with my wife. Our strategy is actually 2 "fishing" / utility vests - can fit 6kg in each easily - when I was carrying the regs in carry-on (which I don't do anymore) I once had to place the two regs in the vest's zippered back pocket. Our strategy is to be nice and agreeable, show up early and be ready for action. 2 "personal items" (small back pack, computer), carryon backpack for my wife and super light 2 wheel roller for me. If we anticipate that it might be a tough check-in, we'll get the roller down to 7 kg, as this is the most commonly weighed carry-on, and check in with full-pockets. You get to know what to expect after a while, but there are always surprises. One notorious thing to look out for is the systematic weighing of rollers in Kuala Lumpur's Air Asia dedicated KLIA2 terminal (a special gate you go through) for instance. I always hand carry the roller in the queue and try to look comfy (rolling seems to increase attention and weight-checks). We check in the bags (as analog nomads without a home for a little under 10 years now, we're quite minimalist but with the dive gear, spares, pharmacy, tools and extra imaging stuff etc needed to live/work in remote areas like we have been doing we do have 3x 23kg check-in bags (2 120L Decathlon soft trekking bags, and one 100L), plus a lot of carryon (2 computers, camera, lenses, etc etc) If the carry-on is weighed, we step aside and proceed to fill the vests as much as possible. Also jacket pockets. No bum-bag but it sounds like a good idea. One idea I've been toying with is to strip the Nauticam compact housing of the tray, and a shoulder strap and carry it on me like a camera (with the camera inside), as it's quite heavy. After the great carry-on transfer, we proceed to re-weight, finish check-in then sit down somewhere and tranfer back to the carry-on. (re-weighing at the gate is rare on airlines we use - Jetstar is notorious, also for their food-hunt, as are some flights using small local planes in Indonesia, ATRs for instance) For the anecdote, last time we had to do the carryon-transfer was on our flight from Osaka in Japan to Guam and on to Palau, where we were going to work, in 2021. Very strict (which was rare in Osaka), and we almost missed the flight. But not because of luggage - carryon got weighed, we had to transfer and that solved it - but because they were afraid we would have entering Guam because regulation require a flight out, and they considered our ongoing flight to Palau was not a flight-out (because Palau is in Micronesia...) Despite explaining that Palau has been an independent country since 1994 and is not part of the Federated States of Micronesia, they wanted to take no chances of us being denied entry... We had to sign an form agreeing to uphold financial responsiblity for airfare if we were denied entry to Guam, and were allowed to board only at the very last minute... Just as cabin crew was about to prepare the plane for take off, someone hops on, moves to our row and tells us they reached Guam and it was confirmed it was ok (of course it was!) Gotta love Japan / flying and luggage.... 😁 (as an epilogue, our immigration process in Guam consisted of the following exchange: "where are you guys off to?" - "just transitting two nights, then off to Palau for work" "oh Palau, very nice, enjoy!")...

Unfortunately the print-out made by operators, which is probably the same as the one mentioned in the 2019 thread posted above, doesn't seem to have much effect. Camera in the housing might be a good idea - reading up officers had a tendency to consider housings as an extra camera - but if there are other accessories (lenses, domes, strobes, lights...) these can be subject to taxation as well. GoPro I guess you could keep in a jacket pocket somewhere? best of luck b

Regarding light positioning for black-water / bonfire type video, I've had some interesting info from Alexander Semenov, who shoots the amazing footage in the Aquatilis project Critters shot this way are mostly bigger than typical BW subjects, and setup primarily using is a triangular edge-lighting set up with wide, powerful lights. This is how he describes it, and helps shed a little light (pun) on the photos Davide posted earlier in the thread, which I'll repost below: "Two huge lights a bit behind the housing - you need to have triangular "dark zone" right in front of the port glass with no light at all and then set up the lights in a way that crossing of light beams will be just in a few cm closer to camera than focal plane. It's a bit tricky, but works like magic. And more light is always better."

Lovely, great bunch of critters you have there, and a welcome change from the usual tropical-water suspects! The lumpsuckers are incredible - it might not be a highlight, but I really love the night shot of the school of Pacific herrings! cheers b

Thanks Jochen, glad you find the discussion interesting! For the grey card, I would say yes, if you can be bothered to do it. It will be more precise, and having the same exact same reference (especially a good one like a wb card) on different clips make life easier in post. The only issue is that white balance is also relative to the distance to a subject, and you will be holding it at arm's length on a cam with a relatively wide lens, which might be a little close, but it still usually works quite well. And even if it doesn't, it's only one possible reference point. Since you'll be picking the WB setting point in post anyway, so if you find it doesn't work as well on a shot, you can always choose another one. I didn't carry a card for most of the GoPro footage I've shot, but found myself using mostly the same references in post for tropical ambient light, mostly: Other diver's tanks (works really well, especially aluminium tanks like AL80s), diver's bubbles, also the classical sand (sand can be a bit of a hit and miss depending on conditions and sand type), or bits of white rocks in the sand. Certain light skin tones / fin colours (white Gull fins...) can be good as well. If there is a reef, there's often a piece of bleached coral somewhere (tips) or other whitish elements in the substrate. But filming a proper WB card will help with consistancy - just film it a couple of second at the start like you said, holding the card as far as you can reach and in the direction of your shot and ideally with the sun in your back, like you would for manual white balancing. Looking forward to seeing the results. DaVinci is great for grading - if you put sufficient time learning to use it. I'd started working on it but unfortunately my current laptop isn't powerful enough to get fluid playback, even running from an external SSD and using proxies, whereas FCPX works fine natively that way. There was the option to edit in FCPX, export to DaVinci to grade, but with no fluid playback on DaVinci it's a nightmare. Planning on jumping in again when I have access to more processing power. cheers b

Problem is it's not clear if actual corruption, or (over)zealous application of existing (but in this case, certainly questionable) laws... To give another non-tax related example, most non-US citizens have to purchase an ESTA to transit through the international area of any US based airport for instance - this is something which is rarely found elsewhere, when only switching planes and not leaving the international transit area (ie. not clearing immigration or customs). Yet this paying process is part of US regulations, and something travelers transiting through the international area of an airport on US soil have to comply with to switch planes in the USA. The ESTA is valid 3 years IIRC. Another example in Indonesia, this time: people planning to use their mobile phones in Indonesia for more than 90 days (tourists visas go up to 180 days) have to register their IMEI / phones at customs (phone is blocked beyond that) There is a $500 USD value-allowance for the phone. Beyond that, the phone is taxed, based on its value (looked up online). Taxation rate is 40% of the remaining value after being discounted $500 USD. People who have a residence permit and/or an Indonesian tax number ID (ie residents and Indonesian citizens) pay 30% instead of 40%. However, tourists / people staying less than 90 days in Indonesia can use their phones without registration (or tax payment), which constitutes both a free allowance and a grace period. Back to photo/video equipement, if you look at the 2019 WeP thread, you can see pictures of the import forms photographers were given, which look quite official normal (16% import tax for the import of "photo and video recording items) As a foreigner, it's generally quite difficult to file a complaint for corruption anywhere, but given the forms issued here, it seems very unlikely to lead to anything. What would be the base of the complaint other than one is not actually "importing" their personal equipment in this case? While there might certainly be some corruption and abuse of authority by customs officers, I'm suspecting that they're just being (over)zealous in this case, and that, as Chris suggested, existing, enforceable laws are actually in place. There's quite a lot of surveillance / security at major international airports, which tends to discourage basic, bill-in-hand type corruption. And previously mentioned, it's a general trend, and Mexican travellers entering their country are also getting hit pretty bad by the same regulations. The way out would be for the authorities to define / clarify the parameters for tourists, and set an allowance (based on value, visa type, time in the country, like in the Indonesian mobile phone example...) for personal goods to be used on a holiday in Mexico. But this would require pressure from Mexico's Secretariat of Tourism, and tourism operators... b

I agree, but keep in mind it's not uncommon for "electronics" (computers, phones, cameras...) to be taxed differently (heavier) than sporting-goods. And things are changing, I don't know about bicycles, but there are reports of tourist's dive gear getting taxed on arrival , as well as golf-gear ( see this Reddit thread from two months ago, a tourist paid 19% import tax on his golf clubs in Cancun, for example) It's a general protectionist trend, and not really new (the BCS camera-tax became more systematic in 2019) When I was living/working in Mexico in 2018, importing dive equipment from the USA already incurred non-neglibeable customs duties (I remember being surprised by the amount when buying an SMB fron Jim Carter in Florida - free shipping to La Paz, but hefty import duties...). Beyond Mexico a couple of years back I sent back my (well-used) hiking shoes, from Japan to EU Europe and had to pay import tax (on my own used, personal goods, which had been bought in Europe, so tax paid...) The main issue I see here is taxation of tourists' personal, used gear (electronic or otherwise) which is to be used on a holiday and taken back out of the country on departure. This doesn't really make sense (as it is not an import per se) and is definitely detrimental to the country's tourism industry.

Ooh that's very nice - it looks like height can be adjusted, which was my main issue with flip-mount options As previously mentioned and illustrated, I use cheap readers for macro, and they work great - but it's important for me to be able to adjust their position easily (bottom half of the mask when I'm spotting, right in the middle when I'm shooting). I have mine with a strap, but this looks like nice and solid alternative! However I use mine on my single glass frameless mask though, and these look like they're designed to make use of the frame on double-lense mask Great idea though. Keep readers close to the glass and it just... works