DreiFish

Are the version II extension rings backwards compatible with the original extension rings? (n120)? Can you mix and match them? I'm thinking of getting a 25mm extension ring to complement my 20. 30, and 40mm rings to be able to fine tune port length in 5mm increments from 20-95mm. . But I recently purchased the Nauticam Extension Ring 10 Version II and I can't seem to get it to work with any of the other original rings and dome ports I have. Is that an issue unique to the 10mm extension ring? Common to all Version II rings? Or am I just doing it wrong?

Basically, I'd interpret those results (similar to Interceptor121's conclusions in this 2013 post) to conclude that the Magic filter is nothing more than a 1 1/2 strength CTO filter (orange filter, which filters out blue light), whereas the UR PRO is a combination of a slightly stronger CTO filter (perhaps a CTO 2) combined with a minusgreen (magenta) filter since it also filters out some of the greens. My hypothesis is that you can get a very similar result to the UR PRO filter by taking a Magic Filter and stacking it with a 1/8 or 1/4 or maybe 1/2 minusgreen filter to it. Or, indeed, if just working with Lee or Rosco gels, you could replicate the attenuation properties of the UR PRO filter by stacking the appropriate strength CTO and Minusgreen gels. I ordered some Minusgreen gels from B&H Photo Video that should arrive later this week and I have CTO gels on hand. I also have Magic and UR Pro filters lying around somewhere in my closet. Time permitting, I can try to validate my hypothesis with some test data later in the week. Other random observations: You can test the color temperature of the Backscatter 4300 torch just as you did -- by illuminating a white target and taking the measurement in lightroom. Looks like it's actually closer to 5000k than 6000k, which is good. The brownish color cast the UR Pro produces (rendering green as brown) is probably what makes it aesthetically appealing. It eliminates unnatural color cast from skin tones and sand, which makes the whole image appear more neutral (if desaturated) and natural. I actually try for a similar end result when processing my photos in Lightroom by desaturating the aqua channel and shifting the hue of green towards yellow-brown.

Thanks David! I guess I could stretch the budget a bit to the Bamboo X1 Carbon also if there's a point. It's currently on sale for $1049.

Thanks for the input, Isaac! Sounds like FDM may be the way to go, at least for initial learning curve, and consider resin later down the line. Are there any FDM printers you (or others) would recommend to start out with, especially with the mindset that it should have the flexibility to print materials that can be waterproof? Budget is $1000. Another thought -- how about adding SLS technology to the comparison? Is it the best of both worlds for the use cases outlined in original post? Or would an SLS printer be completely out of budget and thus not worth considering? (I just found out I have access to a CNC machine at work -- no idea about 3d printers -- so maybe I'll stick with with FDM for now and buy some time on our CNC machines for more interesting metal or derlin projects once I have the design worked out)

Hi, I'm a noob when it comes to 3d printing, but considering purchasing my first printer to make various parts like zoom gears, ports/port extensions, and floats. From reading through some of the threads here, there seems to be a theme that making anything that needs to be waterproof like ports/port extensions and floats require quite a bit of experimentation to identify right printing material and settings for FDM printers. My question is whether going down the SLA resin-based printing route eliminates this concern? Are resin-based prints inherently better at resisting water intrusion and achieving better structural resistance to water pressure?

Well.. .life interfered (newborn)and I got lazy. I don't do as much diving these days and the prospect of investing the time to film a meaningful sequence and edit it is a bit daunting 🙂 So yes, mostly taking photos these days. There's something satisfying about getting a single 'wow' shot rather than trying to splice together something that tells a story. Probably I'll return to video some day, but for now enjoying wide angle photography very much.

Thanks! So mostly firmware related changes to do with TTL implementation, not any hardware changes.

@Phil Rudin what are the differences between the V1 and V2 of the strobe? I couldn't find that published anywhere. Also, how do you tell if the early ones delivered are V1 or V2?

Yes, I skipped that part from the Wetpixel thread. TLDR Methodology: Illuminate a neutral white or light grey target (a color checker chart or 90% white card or 18% grey card is ideal, but you can use white painted walls in a pinch, as I originally did) with a strobe or torch of known color balance (all my tests are done with the Divepro G18 lights, which I've separately measured at 5000k) with the filter being tested applied to the light (or, if testing transmission characteristics of an on-lens filter, applied to the lens) Take a (raw) picture of the target with your camera Measure the white balance in camera or in post. I bring the image into Lightroom and apply the white balance picker tool to what should be a neutral white or grey area of the image and see what resultant white balance is actually required to neutralize the color cast of the filter. That's what the measurements above describe. To estimate light loss, I keep the exposure the same between the initial test with no filter and the subsequent tests with the filters. I then bring up the exposure of the images with the filter in Lightroom using the Exposure slider (which is measured in stops) to match the non-filter picture (using the histogram and spot checker to check exposure in the same spot in the image) to see how many stops underexposed the test image is. To minimize impact of ambient light on the results, do these tests in a dark room 🙂 My testing set-up: And resultant images for context: No Filter = 4850K, +23 Magenta, 0 stops light lost Rosco 4390 (Cyan 90) Filter = 8900k, +141 Magenta, 1 and 1/3 stop of light lost Lee 353 Filter (Lighter Blue) = 15250k, +111 Magenta, 1 stop of light lost Lee 724 Filter (Ocean Blue) = 26000k, +97 Magenta, 1 and 1/3 stop of light lost Lee 172 Filter (Lagoon Blue) = 50000k, +148 Magenta, -100 Aqua saturation, 2.4 stop of light lost

If you shoot the test chart illuminated primarily by a strobe with WB set to the strobe's 'native' temperature (which, actually, probably isn't the advertised temperature from the manufacturers), and with a red filter on the lens, what you're going to get is not a 'neutral' picture -- instead, you'll see exactly what filtration effect the on-lens filter has on the light spectrum produced by the on-lens filter. You can then apply white balance in post to a white or grey square on the color checker and the resulting adjustments will give you an idea of what the filter is doing. So this approach is a valid one for comparing one filter to another and to see which parts of the spectrum the filter attenuates.

I'm really not sure how the various manufacturers have developed their particular filter. For some, it may have been a combination of trial and error using various existing gels. Of course, you could also do it by measuring the target underwater ambient spectrum you want to 'normalize' to daylight -- so, if you have a spectrometer in an underwater housing, you could take it to say, 10m, measure the spectrum of the light there (of course it would vary form location to location and conditions) and then reverse engineer which wavelengths you need to filter out to neutralize the light and work out what sort of filter you need using math/physics 🙂

Purchased in February 2024 and received them April, used fairly lightly on about 30 dives. Come with all the original accessories in their original cases. I'll also throw in 2 sets of custom warming filters that will get the strobes to 4800k and 4000k respectively when inserted inside the diffusers. I've reviewed the strobes extensively here. Without the diffuser, they're matched with the Ikelite DS230 as the brightest strobe I've tested. They have amazing battery life with 3x 18650 LI batteries, a beam that's noticeably wider and softer (no hotspots) than any other straight flash tube strobes, even without the diffuser, great ergonomics and fast recycling times. Full tested specs: Beam pattern without diffuser (compared to Supe D-Pro, a circular flash tube strobe!) $900 each for the strobes and $300 for the Lumilink. Willing to sell it all as a package for $1800 OBO. Shipping additional. Feel free to DM with any questions or contact me at andrei.voinigescu@wartsila.com or +1 954 632 7259 for quicker response. Pictures and original receipt:

Hey Chip -- got one I'm willing to sell, but it's got a Sea & Sea YS-D2 mount on it if I recall correctly. You'd have to source the appropriate mount from Retra.

It's not. The INON S-220 shots were incorrectly the ones at F18 rather than normalized to F22 like the rest. Fixed now. Perhaps a moderator could kindly remove the screenshot from my post above and replace with this one? And combine my post above with the pinned first post for easy of reference?

You could try supplementing the Magic Filter with something like this that filters out green preferentially: https://us.rosco.com/en/products/filters/e279-eighth-minus-green https://us.rosco.com/en/products/filters/r3314-tough-14-minusgreen https://leefilters.com/colour/249-quarter-minus-green/ https://leefilters.com/colour/249-quarter-minus-green/ https://leefilters.com/colour/248-half-minus-green/

During my previous testing, I found that the UR Pro filter is more effective at filtering out green light than the Magic filters, which is exactly what I think your tests demonstrate, @bghazzal. In fact, the Magic filters seem to do very little to filter out greenish cast in the ambient light. No blue filter, no orange filter = 4700K, +20M Lee 353 + Rosco 4330 = 23000k + 121M Lee 353 + Rosco 4330 + Original Magic Filter = 8600k + 150M, -1.3 stops of light (Worst of the bunch.. looks more yellow than orange. introduced MORE green into the image, to the point where even after doing WB in post, there was a greenish tinge. Did a decent job of countering the blue, but would not recommend using it in anything but the most pristine blue waters) Lee 353 + Rosco 4330 + Auto-Magic Filter = 10000k + 121M, -1.6 stops of light (Decent. Knocked out most of the blue cast, but did little for the green. Again, use only in pristine blue water) Lee 353 + Rosco 4330 + UR/PRO CY Filter = 7700k + 77M, -2.3 stops of light (Most effective. Knocked out most of the blue AND green cast. Would be a good all-around choice) Lee 353 + Rosco 4330 + Keldan SF-2 Filter = 12000k + 114M, -2.5 stops light (Ok, but a bit weak. This is designed to compensate only for 4 meters of water depth, and reduces both the blue and green tint. However, in this case, the lights with the Lee 353 and Rosco 4330 filter appear to be better matched to 12 meters of depth..) It would be great if a UR Pro gel were still available, but to my knowledge it never was. I think your grading results look great though, so there's enough color information in the flat footage to be able to color correct the green bias in post. Another option might be to supplement the Magic Filter with another gel filter that predominantly filters out green -- some sort of magenta filter I guess. Perhaps there's something like that in Rosco or Lee's range of filters?

Thank you for kicking off the discussion, @bghazzal. Anticipating that Wetpixel may not be around forever, I archived the findings from my 2022 tests of the red filters and blue (ambient light) filters here.

the first set of frame grabs at 5m are from R5 C raw video with Canon's offical Canon Log2-12(bit) to Wide DR lut applied. The second set at various depths is directly out of camera h.265, filmed in the EOS Standard picture profile.- A bit of color grading of the raw files can get you very nice results indeed at 10 meters:

I did a lot of testing of various red filters and blue/green gels back in 2022 to create a set-up suitable for mixed light video (though concepts are equally applicable to photos). This is the old thread on Wetpixel. Copying my findings here for posterity. Technique A good starting point for understanding the technique is this video from Florian Fischer: https://www.facebook.com/keldanlights/videos/359120794910357/ How I do it: With the blue filters, the color spectrum output by the video lights more or less matches the color spectrum of the ambient light at a certain depth. What that exact depth is will vary from location to location based on water clarity, time of day, cloudy/not cloudy, etc. But it will usually be somewhere in the 6-12m depth range. I go down to 12 meters and do a MWB off a grey or white card using just ambient light. If the camera can't execute a good MWB at that depth without a red filter, then I use a red filter. I then lock in that MWB and turn on the video lights with the blue filters in place. There should be no/very minimal color cast to the areas of the scene that the video lights illuminate. I keep the same MWB for any shots at 8m depth or deeper, down to maybe 30m. Below 30m, I just remove the blue filters from the lights and set a CWB on the camera to 5000k (the color temperature of the video lights). If I need to shoot above 8m depth, I do a MWB again at that depth based on ambient light alone. I mostly shoot with just ambient light at 8m or shallower. You could try to fill in shadows with your lights, but to avoid red color casts on foreground objects, you'll either need a 2nd set of weaker blue filters that are formulated to match ambient light at shallower depths or you'll need to use your lights at a weaker setting so the red wavelengths they put out aren't so overpowering. (on lens) Red Filter Tests As a bonus, I also tested the 4 orange filters I have access to against the Lee 353 + Rosco 4330 combination to see how much of the blue filter they were able to neutralize: No blue filter, no orange filter = 4700K, +20M Lee 353 + Rosco 4330 = 23000k + 121M Lee 353 + Rosco 4330 + Original Magic Filter = 8600k + 150M, -1.3 stops of light (Worst of the bunch.. looks more yellow than orange. introduced MORE green into the image, to the point where even after doing WB in post, there was a greenish tinge. Did a decent job of countering the blue, but would not recommend using it in anything but the most pristine blue waters) Lee 353 + Rosco 4330 + Auto-Magic Filter = 10000k + 121M, -1.6 stops of light (Decent. Knocked out most of the blue cast, but did little for the green. Again, use only in pristine blue water) Lee 353 + Rosco 4330 + UR/PRO CY Filter = 7700k + 77M, -2.3 stops of light (Most effective. Knocked out most of the blue AND green cast. Would be a good all-around choice) Lee 353 + Rosco 4330 + Keldan SF-2 Filter = 12000k + 114M, -2.5 stops light (Ok, but a bit weak. This is designed to compensate only for 4 meters of water depth, and reduces both the blue and green tint. However, in this case, the lights with the Lee 353 and Rosco 4330 filter appear to be better matched to 12 meters of depth..) (on light source) Blue - Ambient Light - Filter Tests 1. The LEE CTB filters aren't as good as I hoped. They increase the color temperture (I.e. introduce a lot of blue) but don't introduce enough green into the light to match underwater ambient light. Results: No Filter = 4750K, +14 Magenta, 0 stops light lost Half CTB = 7550K, +6 Magenta, 2/3 stops light lost Full CTB = 21000K, +7 Magenta, 1 1/3 stops light lost 2x Full CTB = 50000K +12 Magenta, 2 stops light lost (in fact, 50000K was not sufficient to restore neutral color -- I had to dial down blue saturation to -100 in Lightroom) 2. From the Rosco filters, I tried the Cyan 30 (#4330), Cyan 60 (#4360), Cyan 90 (#4390) and Storaro Cyan (#2005). Interstingly, the Cyan 30 perfectly matched the DivePro F01C filter. I'm guessing this would be good at around 3-5m depth to match ambient light? No Filter = 4750K, +14 Magenta, 0 stops light lost Cyan 30/DivePro F01C = 6600k , +67 Magenta, 1/3 stops light lost Cyan 60 = 8600k, +116 Magneta, 2/3 stops light lost Cyan 90 = 12250K, +150 Magneta, 1 1/3 stops light lost Storaro Cyan = 13250K, +150 Magneta, 2 stops light lost (in fact, +150 magneta was not sufficient to restore neutral color. I had to dial down Aqua saturation -100 and Orange saturation -100 in Lightroom to get rid of the remaining color cast) Based on above testing, I think the Cyan 60 might be a pretty good start for matching ambient light at 6-9 meters. Cyan 90 for 9-12 meters. Not really worth using the Storaro Cyan or the 2x Full CTB. No Filter = 4850K, +23 Magenta, 0 stops light lost Rosco 4390 (Cyan 90) Filter = 8900k, +141 Magenta, 1 and 1/3 stop of light lost Lee 353 Filter (Lighter Blue) = 15250k, +111 Magenta, 1 stop of light lost Lee 724 Filter (Ocean Blue) = 26000k, +97 Magenta, 1 and 1/3 stop of light lost Lee 172 Filter (Lagoon Blue) = 50000k, +148 Magenta, -100 Aqua saturation, 2.4 stop of light lost I finally got my hands on the Keldan SF-6B and SF-12B blue water filters. Interesting results... (on the Canon R5 C in lightroom) No Filter = 5150K, +21 Magenta, 0 stops light lost Keldan SF-6B = 17000K, +146 Magenta, about 1 and 2/3 stops light lost Keldan SF-12B = 20000K, +144 Magenta, about 1 and 2/3 stops light lost Surprisingly, there wasn't a lot of difference between the SF-6B and SF-12B.. also, they were both less blue and more green than I expected. Closest you could probably come to this would be to stack the Lee 353 filter with a Rosco 4330 or 4360 filter. Lee 353 + Rosco 4330 = 23000k + 121 Magenta, about 1 stop light lost Lee 353 + Rosco 4360 = 27000k + 144 Magenta, about 1.5 stops light lost If you wanted something closer to the SF-6B, Cyan 60 (Rosco 4360) + Lee Half CTB or Quarter CTB filter may be another combination worth trying. Got a 1/2 CTB to test the earlier theory. Here's the results (on the Canon R5 C in Lightroom) No Filter = 4750K, +14 Magenta, 0 stops light lost Keldan SF-6B = 17000K, +146 Magenta, about 1 and 2/3 stops light lost Keldan SF-12B = 20000K, +144 Magenta, about 1 and 2/3 stops light lost Lee 1/2 CTB + Rosco 4330 = 9900K +74M, about 2/3 stop light lost Lee 1/2 CTB + Rosco 4360 = 12000K + 104M about 1 stop light lost Lee 1/2 CTB + Rosco 4390 = 13500K + 129M, about 1 and 1/3 stop lost Lee 1/2 CTB + Rosco 4330 + Rosco 4390 = 16000K +150M, about 1 and 2/3 stop lost Lee Full CTB + Rosco 4330 = 22000K + 75M about 1 and 1/3 stop light lost Lee Full CTB + Rosco 4360 = 32000K + 99M about 1 and 1/2 stop light lost Seems it's rather hard to replicate the Keldan SF-6B filters exactly, at least with this combination of CTB and Cyan filters. You either end up overshooting the blue or undershooting the cyan. Maybe I should've bought some Lee 3/4 CTB filters to get a bit closer. I have a feeling that a Lee 3/4 CTB + Rosco 4390 Cyan filter would be pretty close. For now, I guess I'll test the Lee 1/2 CTB + Rosco + Rosco 4330 + Rosco 4390 and Lee 353 + Rosco 4330 out in the field. Some real world feedback ] the Red Sea -- I tested out both the Lee 353 + Rosco 4330 = 23000k + 121 Magenta, about 1 stop light lost Lee 1/2 CTB + Rosco 4330 + Rosco 4390 = 16000K +150M, about 1 and 2/3 stop lost At 5 meters with DivePro G18 lights. They blended it seamlessly with an ambient white balance at this depth, filling in the shadows: Just ambient light: + 2x DivePro G18 lights w/ Lee 1/2 CTB + Rosco 4330 + Rosco 4390 + 2x DivePro G18 lights w/ Lee 353 + Rosco 4330 + 4k DivePro G18 lights (2 with first filter combination, 2 with second filter combination) So as you can see both the filter options worked well, and they worked well together too. None produced weird results. However, given the stength of the ambient light, there's a noticable difference in ability to fill in shadows (look at the mask) when using 4x 18k lumen lights vs. just 2x. From this point on, I used the Lee 353 + Rosco 4330 combination on all 4 of my lights as I thought it did a slighly better job than the more cyan Lee 1/2 CTB + Rosco 4330 + Rosco 4390 filter combination in the conditions found in the Red Sea. I'm pleased to report that this filter combination produced great results all the way from 5m to 30m in depth. So, setting a white balance based on ambient light and filling in with the DivePro G18 lights + Lee 353 + Rosco 4330 filters on the lights produced very pleasing results in my view. Here's an example at 30 meters: And 20 meters: And 15 meters: And this is how it renders skin-tones at 20 meters. Pretty good, I think!

I've updated the spreadsheet with three new sheets, one showing my detailed Power, Color Temperature and Flash Duration tests,other showing the recycling times / high speed shooting tests, and a final one with images comparing the beam cover with and without diffusers for the strobes I've tested. Update with correct image

Standard tests, compared with the Sea & Sea YS-D3, Supe D-PRO, and Marelux Apollo 3 Maximum flash power for continuous shooting: And here is the beam pattern, from left to right, top to bottom: DS230, Apollo 3, Supe D-Pro, YS-D3 with Flat Diffuser Observations It's immediately obvious that the DS230 has the brightest, widest, and most even beam. It's 1/3 stop brighter in the center than the Apollo 3, 2/3 stops brighter than the YS-D3 with flat diffuser, and 1 and 1/3 stop brighter than the Supe D-Pro. The color temperature is also the warmest of the strobes. The main limitation is that at full power the flash duration is long, 1/100 of a second. So if you shoot at a faster shutter speed, you won't get to capture the full flash. You can only shoot 1/200s at GN 25 and 1/350s at GN22. Still, at those power levels, it competes well in power with the other 3 strobes. The strobe is also limited for high speed shooting. I was able to get it to fire at 3fps at GN11, which bests the YS-D3 and matches the Apollo 3. Only the D-PRO is 1/3 stop brighter when shooting at 3fps. The issue is that you can't shoot faster than 3fps. At 6fps, every other shot the flash doesn't fire at all. Same at 12fps. So the recycling times are a limitation. Overall, it's a very capable strobe for typical wide angle use, but not a top recommendation for fast action or sunburst, where the flash duration means that it's no better at outcompeting ambient light at higher shutter speeds than the rest of the pack. Where this strobe really would excel in my view is for off-camera use (carried or attached to a model) for creative lighting inside a cave or wreck. There, there's no ambient light to worry about, so the long flash duration isn't an issue. You can always shoot at 1/100s. Nor do you typically need fast flash recycling times in this scenario. It's a poor choice for macro because of the size and length, but also because at minimum power it's still quite bright Because of the long flash duration, HSS would've really not had any benefit on this strobe.

Interesting, Luko. I did actually try it with a 3rd-party optical sync cable I purchased from Amazon that claims it's 617 fiber optic strands, but didn't work with that either. It could be that the small bell connector on the strobe makes it difficult to align the cable just right so it hits flush against the optical sensor. In any event.. some care must be clearly taken to select the right optical cable 🙂

Here are the results with the WWL-C (in air.. perhaps it's a bit more zoomed in in water?) At the wide end (24mm on the base lens), Nauticam rates it as similar to a 10mm rectilinear lens, and it sorta is. Same horizontal field of view, but the rectilinear lens has a taller vertical field of view. Zoomed all the way (50mm on the base lens), it closely matches the field of view of the 35mm rectilinear lens. This is despite Nauticam stating it should behave more like a 21mm lens. So I'd say it's a bit more versatile than the 14-35mm lens, if you can live with the barrel distortion.

I'm sure this has never been done before 😉 -- but since I received my Lawla 10mm MF lens for Canon RF and Kenko 2x TC today, I figured I'd do a quick and dirty comparison at the rectilinear and fisheye field of view. Sharing it here in case it's helpful for others to visualize what you get with each type of lens and extreme rectilinear lenses in the 10mm range. All these images are taken with same setup I've been using recently to test strobes (and, indeed, are at F22, ISO 100 with an Ikelite DS230 firing at full power). Distance from camera to the front wall is 1.4m. First, the rectilinear lenses. 10mm, 14mm, 15mm, 16mm, 17mm, 20mm There's a pretty obvious jump in coverage from 14mm to 10mm. The difference between 16mm, 15mm and 14mm is not so dramatic. Now for the fisheye lens, Canon 8-15mm, at 8mm, 15mm, and then 16mm (8mm + 2x TC). And each of those focal length de-fished using lens corrections in Lightroom. If you're going to de-fish the fisheye, do it at 15mm, not 8. While you do get a wider angle of view defishing a circular fisheye, the loss of resolution at the edges is pretty extreme. At 15mm, the de-fished image is acceptable in quality dowscaled to 1500 pixel, at least for web/social media use. The 15mm fisheye image de-fished is has a wider field of view than 14mm rectilinear - but closer to the 14mm field of view than the 10mm rectilinear. At the opposite end of the spectrum, here is the fisheye + 2x TC at 30mm between the 28mm and 30mm rectilinear. They're very close -- I guess basically same as a 29mm rectilinear lens. Note that the rectilinear is marginally narrower horizontally but wider vertically. At 30mm, the fisheye only shows a mild amount of fisheye distortion. And here is the 30mm fisheye de-fished next to the 30mm rectilinear. Not much between them in terms of angle of view. My conclusion is that the fisheye lens at longer focal length converges on the same angle of view as a rectilinear lens. This is especially once you de-fish it. Further, the 8-15mm + 2x TC combo gives has a very versatile range. It goes from a diagonal angle of view of 170 degrees at 16mm and 73 degrees at 30mm. That's very similar to the 170-74 degree angle of view Nauticam advertises for the FCP + Sony 28-60 combo. I'll take some shots with my WWL-C and 24-50 lens to see how the Nauticam conversion lenses fit into the bigger picture.

I just got my Kenko TELEPLUS HD pro 2x DGX Teleconverter for Canon EF, along with the 40mm port extension for Nauticam. if I can source (or manufacture) a zoom gear, I look forward to testing the image quality, zoom range and autofocus performance next time I get a chance to dive. In the meantime, I did some field of view comparison with rectilinear lenses on land that I'll be posting in a different thread shortly.