bghazzal

Yes i hear all this, and agree it's definitely the trend, and I think everyone pretty much agrees with that. Industry leaders, media, and pretty much everyone in the room here 😄 And the weight argument is certainly a good one - but this doesn't mean that cameras, miniaturisation, computational functions etc will not bring UW kits back to smaller, more manageable proportions. What I do have my doubts about and am discussing here, is the replacement and eradication of dedicated imaging equipment by generalist, non-dedicated tools, especially of the smartphone-type. But let's see - the technology is out there, and phone cameras are getting better by the month (week?), housings are available and pressure resistant phones are maybe already tested and out (if there's really a market for it, that is) Which means that the smartphone underwater explosion should happen in the next, what, 3/4 years most? Maybe less? It's fun to imagine the revolution for underwater imagery. The younger generation will shoot on smartphones because this is what they know, what they do and also like (it's in their DNA, to use a tired corpo-trope, which stands for Digital NAtive, right?). Tired veterans will make the switch, more or less reluctantly, because big rigs are cumbersome and heavy, airline luggage policies too restrictive, and anyway if they can do the same or better with their phones, so why even bother? Software will make up for all those heavy, unnecessary, physical elements (such as optics and lights) anyway. Remaining camera makers, holding on to their brand-names, will be trying to sell add-ons for phones or already filing for bankruptcy - housing manufacturers will only sell phone housings and lights (while this is still needed, since low-light functions will soon be fully handled by software making Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" indoor shots look amateurish...). Underwater imaging equipment will be reduced to a few online outlets, selling whatever specialised pieces of equipment are still (barely) needed and underwater drones for people who can't be bothered getting wet. Professional applications will be upheld by action cam makers, non-banned equivalents of DJI, but even in this field it will all be almost all software (and light-field cameras 😁😁😁) Sharing, social media (an old world word, since all media is now fundamentally social) will be showcasing a mixed bag of reality based content, and reality-derived content of all shapes and sizes, some with interactive functions enabled, others not. BBC Blue Planet 10 will allow you be at the center of a baitball or see it through the eyes of a predator (but also offering a "visual only" version for artistic respectability, and pleasing the old farts still watching rather than interacting with the content) And who knows, we might even be spending time in a metaverse that finally looks better than the one of Godzilla-attacked-Wendy's fame, and drone-based cars will be flying, at last. 😅 I'm well aware that since the iPhone was launched in 2007 and we got pictures of all the material products it could and has replaced - this has become the doxa, the accepted obvious direction, a crossroad that only blinded fools like that photographer arguing that slides would never be replaced by digital pixels could misread. the future is now And we already have further ventures into generalistic, broad-sweeping interfaces aiming to further integrate what phones currently do into "augmented reality" (here's another word that smells fishily obsolete already...), think google glass or apple vision pro, but on steroids, where you can "do everything", including typing out your Minority Report, just by looking and pointing into thin air (life). And implants, or less icky devices offering similar integration capacities, are probably not that far around the corner either, for always more integration, immersion, less is more. So why would anyone want to hold an imaging-dedicated object like a camera in their hands? Who would bother, and why? Underwater, won't the logical trend be to integrate cameras into dive masks and live-stream your dives? It's not like camera integration hasn't been tried already, from go-pro mounts to integrated mask cams, to video "flashlights" like the Paralenz... Less to carry, less to do, less to worry about = more pure, unadulterated fun, right? less to do, more to live (© patent pending) And I'm sure members of your daughter's generation cohort, her friends or maybe her kids, will use such devices at least a couple of times (if they can still fly somewhere on holidays, that is...). Yet my point in all this is that I'm not totally convinced that all of this stampede-forward will rid us of dedicated physical imaging devices (ie "cameras") altogether. Especially for hobbyists ("photographers") and professionals. Something about form and function, practicality, a little on the same lines as to how Kodak mini-instamatics or Polaroids didn't kill the camera market, as some people thought they would at the time. They served a slightly different purpose. I see smartphones (and their all-purpose, further integrated offsprings) and cameras (dedicated imaging devices) going along the same way - crossovers for sure, but not necessarily mutually exclusive. Maybe. Same line of thinking goes for musical instruments perhaps? Were synthesizers, midi-instrument, ProTools and (argh) DJs, and even digital audio in general (from recording to Napsterized digital output) were revolutionary, but somehow also not the first nails in the coffin? ProTools, recording studio killer The Cartier-Bresson example is also an interesting one in that painting is a more physical activity than photography, a return to form but also to a more hands-on visual creation medium than clicking a shutter and developing prints will ever be (a beautiful irony is that photography was once anticipated to kill-off painting completely as a medium...) And beyond the physical object, in a world soon completley saturated both by quality point-and-shoot an partially to fully computer-generated content, will there not be some sort of longing for a return of the physical, if not in the medium itself, at least in the tools used? With iphones and other smartphones capable of taking award-winning pictures and shooting professional video, with action cams killing it like never before - why are interchangeable lens camera sales going up in Japan in 2023? Is it just a glitch in the Matrix, a last dying hiccup of aging photographic-Mohicans before the curtain falls for good? Or is there something else going on there? Also, for some odd-reason, I'm not sure sharing images on "social media", Instagram or other is actually the endgame for imaging. It certainly seems this way now, (after all, what else is there, print?) but I think there are also hints that things might evolve a little differently in the future. I would just say: don't underestimate the backlash to the major, mainstream trends we see now. Especially when it comes to hobbies, personal time and more professional application. But this is most likely the Butlerian-jihadist luddite in me speaking, of course 😄 "Nikonos-users of the world, unite!" So I've done it - it's 2024 and I'm putting these crackpot ideas out there for you folks - or whoever might be accessing archives by then - to laugh at in 10 or 20 years, laughing at how wrong I was in doubting the smartphone and its multifunction integrated offsprings as the ultimate camera killer, in what will likely be a time where people will just be creating imaging content without actual subjects being shot, since they will just be choosing and working from captures from their 360° archived life-feed (and making smashing composites on their first try, no doubt 😅) A world where dedicated cameras/imaging device are no longer made or sold, and Cartier-Bresson would likely shun painting for prompt-based generative-art... crappy open-source AI generated image of a boy with a smartphone.

Definitely for computational photography, but I don't think it will kill the dedicated-camera market. Really interesting times - looking at the Nikkei graph posted in the other thread, illustrating the "penetration rate" of digital camera in Japanese households in 2023 makes it look like armaggedon for digital cameras. But then the article I posted above also shows that the same 2023 was the also the first time in 13 years that the Japanese digital camera market experienced positive growth, with a 7% sales increase compared to the previous year, and this growth concerned interchangeable lens cameras (9% growth) and lenses of all things... Statistics are very useful, but have to be approached with caution, and given context, meaning. While camera functions on phones are great, let's not forget the primary function of smartphones is not photography, but clearly online media access and communication. This is what people use them the most for on a daily basis. I'm confident cameras will become more phone-like in their features (computational features, automation, media sharing etc,), I doubt that phones will fully replace dedicated physical cameras for photographers. Something about the dedicated physical object, form, lenses... Sometimes I wonder if we're not already at peak smartphone, a form of saturation of the non-dedicated device that can do everything but also relies on limiting physical interfaces and ergonomics. Beyond memory snaps and other social, interractive content, will imaging users, especially hoobyists, want more touch-screen / vocal commands, or return to the comfort of physical ergonomcs, handles triggers, balance. Will users want even more automation, even less to do to capture images, or will this kill some of the interest? Phone touchscreens will soon be obsolete as an interface, thing headset mounted integration etc - but will this really "kill the camera" or will the dedicated camera just become (in a way like it already is), something else, another tool, with sligthly different purposes and persepectives? Probably both will evolve in parallel, with smartphones filling, like they already do, the role of a compact, always available, memory snapping (and sharing) device - the new instamatic / polaroid - and likely biting into the action-cam market as well. While dedicated photography / imaging equipement will continue to appeal to hobbyists and professionals. This could be even more marked for specialist applications like underwater imaging. ben

Blowing against the wind, and maybe totally mistaken, but do have my doubts as to whereas phones will really leave their mark on the underwater photography/video world. Sure, smartphones killed compact cameras (which are also making a comeback of sorts at the moment, but this could just another retro-trend) yet there's a major difference, in that people usually have their phones with them during everyday life activities. For diving, yes, people will bring their phones on a boat, but it's quite a step-up to build an UW imaging kit around a smartphone intended as your primary imaging device. Yes, I know it works fine, and that people are doing it, that it would save having an extra device etc... I've seen recent phone housings even with filter attachements (Divevolk and others), and even if you counter this with an amazing dive video filmed on an iphone,I do have serious doubts as to whether this will really catch on. At the moment there still is something of novelty to it, and it seems we're in a phase were gadgety products are one the rise in the underwater imaging world - so given phone sales, it seems natural that phone housings seem like the next big thing, and that phones (and AI capactities!) will sweep the UW imaging world like a tidal wave. But again, something feels off, and it the anticipated explosion of demand doesn't really seem to be happening either... So let's see in a few years, if we can point the finger at my lack of foresight in this domain or not. Why? Well I see the form factor as a drawback, also the fact that phones are not dedicated devices, plus maybe psychological reluctance to bring a phone underwater for diving, and having to deal with a proper housing etc... There's also the fact that action cams exists and are easier to use in such a context, and also that people looking for more complex products / applications will probably be willing to invest time and momey in building a practical UW kit around a more specialist product than a phone, regardless of the phone's technical bells and whistles. Same goes for underwater tablets and UW wireless data transmission... beyond professional applications, retailers and technology geeks, will people really bother? At the moment it reminds me more of those soft "surf" vinyl housing intented for using DSLRS at the beach. Works, some people bought them, but didn't really catch on for a number of reasons... So I'll bookmark this and see if I was totally off-mark, and housing manufacturers will mostly be seeling phone (or whatever Swiss-army knife devices phones have evolved into) in a few years cheers

As an unexpected follow-up to this adventure, the SUPE MS-10 replacement received above is now unuseable... I would advise potential SUPE customers to be very careful, as there is clearly something wrong with at least some of the products in their range... So here's the deal: As explained above, the replacement SUPE MS-10 light arrived after 5 months, on January 5th. During the 5 months interval (!) waiting for its replacement I had bought a Backscatter MW4300 Macro-wide video light to fill the void, and it became my primary light (no problems with it, so I am not cursed 😝) Meaning that the SUPE MS-10 went into storage, after checking that it worked on land. However, I have recently been doing bonfire-style night dives, which gave the SUPE MS-10 a new purpose as a narrow pointer, especially since I was using the MW4300 as a lure light. So the brand-new replacement SUPE MS-10 went diving with me, 4 times. Yes, that's 4 dives at around 10 meters... No flooding no nothing but... Long story short the electronics are giving-in, and the SUPE MS-10 light turns on when it wants to... On land you can unscrew the battery compartement and try again. Underwater this is not an option of course. So I contacted SUPE again, explaining the situation, with pictures and a video of the problem. I got a (swift) reply from SUPE, asking for a video - I had already sent one, but sent it again, along with other test videos. I was then told to try to wipe the contact area with alcohol. Fair enough - the red circles were added by SUPE on my footage to highlight which areas to clean. To be frank, I couldn't see any oxidation on this light which had been only 4 times in the water, but hey, I had some IPA / Isopropanol, so wiped everything and hoped for the best. Alas, the problem remains - as suspected, it is most likely due to the light's electronics / control circuit. I told SUPE, and sent further test videos showing the light turning on and working and, in other cases, not turning on or working (with the same batteries...) I then got this reply: To which I answered that a light which sometimes turns on and sometimes doesn't cannot be used for diving. I'm am not taking a light on night dives that might or might not work (I generally avoid this with any piece of equipment if I can....) Having waited 5+ months for a replacement last time, I also explained that I did not feel like losing more time with this and especially not with their suppliers in Indonesia. I don't know if this applies to all SUPE products, this specific MS-10 model or if I've just been very unlucky, but the light I have is unuseable and will now end up in the garbage. I hope this misadventure will help other people make more informed decisions when considering buying products from this manufacturer, SUPE, also known as Scubalamp / SUPE / Fotocore and maybe others names. So big caveat emptor, unfortunately - I for one will stay away from this brand (which should maybe spend more time on product design and quality-testing than on social-media promotion...), once is bad luck, twice might be a coincidence, but I'm not in a hurry to confirm any patterns the third time... cheers ben

Wow - good to know thanks - how far out is the boat ride in the strait? The Lombok Strait major Indonesian throughflow so I've always wondered what the current must be like there. Must be quite a drift! I've only been out on junkungs, about a mile or so out to the FADS / rumpon. At the moment I'm doing bonfire dives in the shallows, but deep backwater would be interesting. cheers

Interesting - Paralenz's depth sensor was used to adjust auto-WB based on pressure / depth for instance.

It does look good - not mind blowing revolutionary-good to the point that I would feel the need to buy it, but certainly a worthy, solid contender. Wonder what the UW footage would look like with a filter and manual white-balance in post, as always... Out of the 3 main acion cam brands, I'm partial to DJI. I've been thinking about switching to their action cams in the future since the Action3, seems a little less gadgety - for lack of a better word - and maybe a little better thought-out than GoPro and the Insta360 (but of course their is some serious confirmation bias at play here 😉), and in softer price range than GoPros. But as shocking a denial of the GAS syndrome as it may sound, I haven't felt a radical urge to upgrade my GoPro 7 blacks yet (although the swelling batteries are really starting to drive me nuts...). Last action cam purchase was my already obsolete AOI wide lens a few months back. When the GP7 are finally put to rest (and they are getting there after years of use), big chance I will become a DJI user

Davide was working on a shallow cold-water (river) project with a digipower case giving 3 hours or so of filming IIRC the waterproof battery pack is this one here, digipower refuel https://digipower.com/collections/re-fuel/products/9hr-actionpack-extended-battery-module-for-hero9-ip68-waterproof-dust-proof-all-weather it was used with new wide lenses, see here: https://waterpixels.net/forums/topic/616-inon-and-aoi-wide-angle-wet-lenses-for-gopros/page/2/#comment-3616

As a side question, does Matahari organize boat-based black-water over deep water in the strait or shallow, bonfire-type dives? cheers!

Wetpixel seems to be back up now.... 🧟‍♂️

Looking forward to some lake action then! 😄 If we take a look into other filters in the Lee range and compare curves, the LEE 008 Dark Salmon actually comes out as really close to the UR-PRO Cyan (if the spectrum reconstruction is correct, which it seems to be empirical tests). Both filter material's colour is also nearly identical To address the exposure issue, here is the Dark Salmon and a few other (lighter) potential contenders, superimposed on the UR-Pro spectrum/transmission reconstruction data posted a few posts above: delete me please Main transmission differences are highlighted in red: violet blue cyan green yellow orange red 400 nm UR PRO = 25% LDS = 17% 410 nm UR PRO = 27% LDS = 17% 450nm UR PRO = 12% LDS = 13% 470nm UR PRO = 8% LDS = 8% 500nm UR PRO = 4% LDS = 6% 520nm UR PRO = 7% LDS = 8% 550nm UR PRO = 18% LDS = 21% 570nm UR PRO = 50% LDS = 36% 580nm UR PRO = 65% LDS = 48% 600nm UR PRO = 87% LDS = 75% 700nm UR PRO = 90% LDS = 88% Assuming the UR-Pro filter reconstruction data is correct, to summarise: • UR-Pro lets more violet/deep blue than the Lee Dark Salmon, 27% vs 17% at 410nm - the UR-Pro curve goes up at this point a sort camel hump in violet/deep blues. • UR-Pro lets more green through, 50% vs LDS 36% at 570nm, and also more yellow 60% vs LDS 48% at 580nm and orange 87% vs LDS 75% at 600nm, so a steeper steeper curve from green to orange. These transmission differences likely explain exposure differences between the UR-Pro and LDS, especially the 570nm to 600nm points. The rest of the two filters' transmission is actually almost identical, only a few % difference, which is rather impressive and explains why the results are so similar.... This is going to be hard to beat I think... **** For lighter alternatives, quick and dirty colour/exposure test on land (placing gels on the gopro lens, sorry for the fingertips 😅) gives the following results: It seems "107 light rose" is the most solid contender for a similar but lighter filter, though I'm a little concerned that the curve from green to orange is much flatter in this case... cheers

As yet another follow-up to this fascinating quest for the filter-grail, I tested the Lee 008 Dark Salmon filter in water (depths ranging from 8 to 20m on a tropical morning, slightly overcast day in east Bali) and the results are in... As anticipated (drum roll?), the filter works really well, with a very similar profile to the UR-Pro Cyan (or Cyan SW?), however with one major caveat: 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 better than the UR-Pro when going deeper, but this is a give and take, as it means a greater loss of light - could be fine in the tropics, less so elsewhere. So, the quest is not completely over just yet. However we can add with confidence that the Lee 008 Dark Salmon is a truly worthy replacement for the UR-Pro cyan, and readily available for very cheap in gel rolls... 😄 But a tad stronger, then... *** Since the proof usually is in the pudding, here is some test footage, shot on two GoPro7 Black held side by side (no tray, this is quick and dirty handheld, one GP in each hand...), identical settings (flat profile ie. WB native, GoPro colours, ev -0.5, ISO max 1600, 4K 60fps). If you're fast enough as a click-slinger, you can actually watch both clips at the same time 😉 UR-PRO CYAN FILTER VS. LEE DARK SALMON GEL FILTER, AS SHOT (not white-balanced in post, ungraded) UR-PRO CYAN FILTER VS. LEE DARK SALMON GEL FILTER, WHITE-BALANCED IN POST + QUICKLY GRADED not bad for a commercially available gel, eh?... (please not that grading adjustments are flexible and subjective choices - there is plenty of room for modifications on both cams - this was just a quick and dirty grade, aiming to bring the cams' footage to similar results) cheers! ben

It just says "digital cameras / video cameras" in the article. The main snippet here: The rate of decline in the global digital camera market share has slowed compared to before, and demand for high-performance mirrorless cameras is increasing, with our magazine describing it as “high-performance mirrorless cameras are strong and the market is recovering.” The ranking of sales volume share remains the same as in 2022 , with Canon in first place, and if you add Sony’s share in second place, the two companies will exceed 70% of the sales volume share. Canon and Sony still seem to be overwhelmingly strong. I would like to see the share based on value as well. is accurately translated. Not going to buy it, but I'll take a look at the Nikkei report when I'm in Japan, see if they give any more details on actual camera ranges per maker. I found another related April 2024 article here, giving a lot of details for the Japanese digital camera market (based on a survey of roughly 10,000 outlets throughout Japan) https://www.gfk.com/ja/insights/mi20240418 The article highlights that 2023 was the is the first time in 13 years that the digital camera market experienced positive growth, with a 7% sales increase compared to the previous year. Importantly, interchangeable lens sales experienced a 4% growth compared to 2023, whereas interchangeable lens cameras 9% - Here is a graphic of camera sales in Japan per camera type and per year. From left to right: - digital cameras as a whole (blue) - compact cameras (green) - interchangeable lens cameras (yellow) - interchangeable lens (red) And this graphic here shows user preferences influencing Japanese camera purchases, from October 2022 to January 2023 and October 2023 (light blue) to January 2024 (dark blue) Top to bottom: - autofocus speed - maker / brand - pixel count - autofocus accuracy - camera size / weight - autofocus range and number of focus areas - in-camera stabilization - continuous shooting speed - available lens range - eye-tracking AF cheers ben

I tried the small light to spot last time - I had the SUPE MS-10 snoot video light centrally mounted, and used the Bacscatter MW4300 as a lure. But the beam of the MS-10 turned out to be too thin for these purposes. After 20/30 minutes waiting for the swarm to develop around the lure only to have it reform on the lights, I gave up and mounted the 4000 lumen lure centrally on the kit instead, which is nice. Macro mode beam is narrow enough, but not too narrow to be unuseable, and also it seems to help with the focusing / lighting from what I could see. As for using the two lights on low, this was indeed the plan - I thought I would have them on low all the time - but based on what I could try in situation, what worked best to avoid backscatter (or rather critter saturation, as they're actually alive) was actually having the lights at 6000 lumen and using the side of the light cone instead of have them more central which illuminates a too large zone. So I moved from the lightbox to a more open config, but this also requires more power to work. Maybe this need more testing - if I remember the previous posts, some people (Nanette?) got nice results with 3000 lumen lights, but I assume this was in a true blackwater setup with a ton of lure lights... After giving up on the single lure light, I tried just using the MW4300's beam to spot/attract critters, but the problem remained, everytime I had something and turned on the two lights, a swarm formed around them, drowning out the suject I was trying to isolate..

One question that really intrigues me, in current circumstances, is the relationship between the constant light output of video lights used for filming and video lights as lures. For photography it seems pretty straightforward: a narrow beam focus light to spot, staying around the lures, and milliseconds of strobe lighting to shoot the critters. But for video, shooting means turning on the constant output video lights... Question is, in blackwater/bonfire type setups, how does this work when working with lure lights ? Won't the camera video lights become lure themselves? Is the secret to always have more power on the lure lights than on the videast's rig? This interrogation is directly linked to my current situation, where I'm in a very interesting place to try things of the bonfire kind, great opportunity to work on things, but I'm also alone in the endeavour, with no access to a set of lure lights. I'm basically trying to shoot some of the larval planktonic critters which show up on night dives, to work on things, and there are plenty of subjects arounds (most common at the moment are larval mantis shrimps for instance, present even on a bad day). So I tried using one of my 3 lights as a lure, but it's only 4000 lumen - so when I turn on the other two, the swarm of planktonic critters instantly reforms around my camera's lights, and it's very difficult to isolate subjects as it's heptic with life coming in super close. Really not sure how to approach this and make it work. It's been easier to shoot planktonic critters in blue water during the day,because the sunlight means I don't have to deal with attraction to the lights... I just shoot them as I would to create black-background shots, which works fine (especially now that I have a set of 2x 8000lm lights) but daytime plankton is much less consistent. I've asked around and no one has powerful lights unfortunately (too many photographers 😁), so not sure what I could do. It feels a little sad to give up on the idea, but maybe local waters are just too rich to roam in the water column at night.... i guess I could use one of the 8000lm lights as a lure (leaving me with one 8000lm and one 4000lm, but wondering if this would make that much of a difference since the rig's lights would still overpower the lure... any thoughts? cheers ben

The one and only Ajiex Dharma 😎 https://www.marelux.co/pages/ajiex-dharma https://www.instagram.com/ajiexdharma/

I found this definition: Blackwater Diving vs Bonfire Diving So as not to confuse the terms and to establish a clear difference, there is “Blackwater diving” and “Bonfire diving”. Blackwater diving is done in the open ocean; it is NOT an ordinary night dive with a subject photographed in the dark. Blackwater diving is done where there is no bottom, over very deep water, using a downline and lights to attract larval and pelagic subjects. Bonfire diving is done over a shallow area by using torches planted in the sand or hanging them in the water (or both) facing deeper water. During a Bonfire dive, one can expect to see subjects that are still larval but closer to the settling stages of their lifecycle. Bonfire style dives are also a great way to learn the dive skills, hunting skills and photo skills needed for blackwater diving but without the stress. Both styles of diving are equally important to gain a better understanding of the marine world. Both will expose divers to a variety of jellyfish, salp, comb jellies, pterapods. shrimps, octopus, squids, the list is endless… Source: https://www.uwphotographyguide.com/art-of-blackwater-photography

oh yes definitely - I drooled over the AOI Pro closeup diopters, especially their +18.5 and +23.5, which are really nice, but had to gave up because of the price tag, and still holding on to my non-pro AOI UCL-09 (catchy name) +12.5, which is now discontinued...

I wholeheartedly agree - but practically, using focus peaking for macro on a screen as small as the gopro's might be an issue underwater, don't you think? I say this because my LX10 compact has a bigger screen and I use an RGB screen magnifier along with my +3 underwater readers to make up for the lack of external screen options when shooting macro with focus peaking, and that's already something... 😁 But maybe I'm just old and need new eyes, and the tiny dots of colour will be enough of an indication to judge if one if actually in focus. Better than nothing for sure!

Wow - already better late than never I guess! Action cams have really taken programmed obsolescence to another level. Same same - just tried it once for tests - had I known, I would have held back as I plan to use it in the shallows in a few months... Ah well, I'll have to make do with my AOI lens which can scratch easily and reflects in the shallows or shooting into the sun then... 😅

Following up on this, I decided to try another, more hands-on approach and simply selected all the Lee filters I had at my disposal which were visually close in tint to the UR-Pro Cyan, and ran some basic tests on the best results in the Lee range. . The winner (closest to the UR-Pro Cyan) visually was the Lee 008 Dark Salmon filter. This similarity was then confirmed by shooting a whibal grey card, and running the results in lightroom. Results where as follows: UR PRO CYAN Temp value -51, MAGENTA -26 LEE DARK SALMON T -60, MAGENTA -28 The temp scale used here (-100 - +100) is what LR uses for non raw files instead of kelvins, but this is very similar to the previous tests with raw files and kelving values. (please not that the UR-Pro filter used in these tests was half-dry and not the cleanest... 😅) UR PRO CYAN AS SHOT: LEE DARK SALMON AS SHOT: UR PRO CYAN white-balanced: LEE DARK SALMON white-balanced: Other Lee filters tested ranked as follows: PALE RED -68, MAGENTA -43 GOLD AMBER -70, MAGENTA -20 MILLENIUM GOLD -77, MAGENTA -25 **** Available Lee filter data for the 008 Dark Salmon is as follows: Colour Temperature 6774K (daylight) Transmission Y: 35.4 This warming value is coherent with the UR Pro Cyan's roughly +3000K warming effect, and a transmission value of 35 is also roughly in the -1.5 / -1.6 exposure range. The Lee Dark Salmon is interesting contender, which would need to be tested in water. As an important side note to the UR-Pro info posted above, UR-Pro also released, a few years after the original UR-Pro Cyan, a lighter filter called the UR-Pro Cyan SW (shallow water). I do not know if the UR-Pro cyans I have are standard or SW, but I suspect they might be the latter, which would explain differences with the original curve. ***** Finally, I also tried to select Lee filter gels equivalent for the Keldan Spectrum SF-1.5, but didn't find anything as conclusive - the Keldan gel's dark pink hue is really quite particular (true custom design?), and there was no direct equivalent in the filters I have at my disposal... cheers! ben

As a follow-up, a very kind soul sent me a bunch of Lee filters samples for further testing. First test was with the Lee Pale Red 166 combined with the Lee 266 UV, combo presented above. Physically, this dual setup was tricky to setup on my GoPro 7- the filters are held in place by an o-ring, which vignettes on the image and cuts some light, and they were not in the best shape after setting them up . And unfortunately, due to human error ISO and lowlight settings were not identical on the two GoPros, but it was enough to see that the filter combo was a little too strong compared to the UR Pro. The Lee Pale Red combo had a strong pink/red cast in the shallows, but performed really well at depth (10m+), actually better than the UR-PRO cyan... However, loss of light (and settings?) meant higher ISO, and more noise on the gels (results are blurred by the settings issue and also gel damage while inserting in the housing, which could also explain the loss of sharpness). Here's and ungraded side-by-side capture from a clip shot at 10m depth: (one can see that the gel combo actual cuts more greens than the UR-Pro, and lets more blues through, but with a slight magenta hue, meaning it's a little too strong for the depth). Quickly graded results are similar, and the filter works. And here is a deeper ungraded shot, at 15+m - here again, the Pale Red combo generally outperforms the UR-Pro, and the magenta hue is less present due to red absorption: So overall an interesting combo, definitely less versatile than the UR-Pro in the shallows but pushing the blues over greens, which is interesting, and probably works nice in the 15-20m depth range. The drop in image quality, due either to ev / absorption, ISO settings I had on the 2nd test cam, gel damage or the fact that the gels are not optical quality (?), would need to be addressed... An interesting option, but a slightly different beast from the UR-Pro Cyan 😃

The screen incorporate in the AOI housing has focus peaking (handled by the screen), so it's possible to have focus peaking with an UW macro lens like the AOI if one has the AOI housing with incorporated screen, so this is a work around. Otherwise on the GoPro itself, it's autodetect dependent, and overides all presets (including protune) GoPro has indicated that their macro lens, while waterproof is not for use underwater It would be great if it could be enabled without the Go Pro macro lens on to use with other 3rd party links People already brought this up in 2022... https://community.gopro.com/s/question/0D53b00008XudbLCAR/focus-peaking?language=en_US

Yes, there's no real difference, other than that for traditional black water are usually done over deep water, so as to attract deep-dwelling critters during their theoretical nightly migration from the depths. Bonfire dives, whether on a line (mooring line, or shallow suspensions) or on the bottom (lights placed on the sand, creating a light "bonfire") are generally stationary night dives with a lure light, done in the shallows, often on shore dives. In this sense it is indeed similar to the light-pooling night dives like the mantas (Hawaii) /whale sharks (Maldives)/mobulas (sea of Cortez) etc, with the major exception that the focus here is not to try to drag in large planctonic feeders but, as in traditional deep black water diving, to recreate the food chain (micro-plankton eating zooplankton coming to feed, etc) The main difference is depth - you are not diving offshore around a suspended line), as this is done in shallow water. Your also not drifting in the current, the light source is stationary. You do not need a boat, logistics are much simpler, cheaper (poor man's blackwater? 😉). As for the difference in critters showing up, it's really location (topography, current, upwellings, moon cycles and general fauna) dependent - with the clear caveat that some true deepwater (Nautilus for instance) critters will almost certainly not be around, and that there will probably be more swarmies. In a sense, "bonfire", light-pooling, light-trap night dives are all shorthand for shallow, usually stationary "blackwater" ( planktonic and larval focused) diving. cheers

From what I read/understood the camera has a sensor detecting which lens, which overides any settings (incuding protune) and sets lens-compatible settings. If this is mechanical (say a a sort of gasket), there might be a way to trick the camera into thinking the lens is on, but there's no way of knowing if gopro dedicated macro lens settings will work with a 3rd party macro lens designed for UW use like the AOI lenses.