Davide DB

Yes, actually very nice. But I have the impression that there is a small trick in the video. The image is quite static, as if he used only one of the two lenses and therefore there is no stitch between the two hemispheres. Or maybe the stitch is static. Maybe I am wrong, I am not an expert on these 360 cameras. Many people do not understand rule #1 of video shooting in general: instead of moving the camera without sense with awkward movements, if you keep the camera still and let the subjects move, you never go wrong.

it doesn't work. Flash is completely disabled with electronic shutter: https://eww.pavc.panasonic.co.jp/dscoi/DC-GH7/html/DC-GH7_DVQP3109_eng/0058.html And here: https://eww.pavc.panasonic.co.jp/dscoi/DC-GH7/html/DC-GH7_DVQP3109_eng/0168.html#00007 The flash does not fire when using the following functions: – Video recording – [ELEC.]/[Silent Mode] – High Resolution mode – [Filter Settings] The documentation clearly states that the flash will not fire when the shutter type is set to Electronic, or when Silent Mode (which forces the use of the electronic shutter) is turned on. This is a standard firmware block implemented by Panasonic across their camera bodies with non-stacked sensors. It is designed to prevent users from capturing partially illuminated frames, which happens because the electronic readout speed of the sensor cannot synchronize with the brief duration of a strobe flash.

Yes, I simplified a lot. You brighten the background by changing the ISO, basically exposing for the ambient light. But here Chris post comes into play: to get decent corners in full frame you have to work with approximately two stops narrower aperture, and so from the chart he posted you can see that the SNR is practically identical. In short, technically I do not see all this difference. Then for large prints I agree. But I still think that this endless debate comes down to corner cases. Camera manufacturers develop and market the full frame format to meet purely terrestrial needs, such as the search for a shallow depth of field for portraits or clean images at very high ISO for reportage. None of these features is optimized for shooting through a glass lens submerged in a liquid. Underwater optical physics, if isolated from the global market, would benefit more from the balance offered by smaller sensors. Micro four thirds allows the use of hydrodynamic domes and guarantees a native depth of field that greatly helps composition while diving.

But then I do not understand one thing... Practically nobody takes photos in ambient light where the camera has to try to adapt to ambient conditions. Here everyone uses strobes! So let us imagine having an Olympus M43 and a Sony A7RVI photographing the same scene. If the flashes are adjusted so that each of the two cameras records a properly exposed scene, I do not understand where this noise comes from. If the scene is too dark, you increase the flash power. In other words, taking it to the extreme, for what we are talking about, underwater photos are like a photo shoot in a studio. Where the light is adjusted by strobes and lights and not by the camera sensor. In a studio, the photographer doesn't work at ISO 1600. He increases the light power. It is different if I took photos in ambient light at dusk or in low light conditions. I would be forced to raise ISO to levels where I would probably notice the differences. P.S. I could be very critical about the low light conditions that everyone claims to be in... 😉

Welcome aboard! Ciao

Hi Caolla, I completely understand your frustration, and I want to assure you that we are not ignoring the issue. As Tim mentioned, we are currently stuck trying to reproduce it. On our end, everything appears normal, and our tests on Windows 11 using Edge did not show any problems. I also ran tests today across two different computers and accounts, and everything worked as expected. To get to the bottom of this, we have opened a support ticket with Invision and are currently waiting for their feedback. Please bear with us. Our platform is a free community project that we maintain in our spare time from different parts of the world, and we are doing our best to help. We will update you as soon as we hear back. Ciao

Wow, a lot of life indeed. Thanks for sharing

This could be my new signature 😁

Sorry Caolla, we live in different part of the world, ss soon as Rich will be online he will gives another try. In the meantime I'm writing you from MS Edge on my Win11 laptop and it works. I'll Try later with another user.

IIRC all 14-42mm zooms except the Oly pz pancake were discontinued. At one point Pana decided that kit lens were 12-32mm or 12-60mm zoom and WWL was designed on FF 28mm. Yes it's plenty of used lens out there but It is a shame not to be able to use a modern lens. With 12mm the situation gets complicated and the price goes through the roof. Edit: For the 12mm zooms we have two options: 12-32mm + WWL-C. I guess similar results as 14-42 + WWL-1. This lens is discontinued as well. 12-35mm + WACP-1 Really pricey. Virtually no compromises but I've never seen one out there. The 12-60mm has a lens excursion too long for a useful port configuration.

@Phil Rudin could be a good influence😃

I have on my work laptop. Tomorrow I will try

Playing with MWB we soon realized that adjusting WB and setting the temperature in Kelvin are not the same thing. Manual WB adjusts both the temperature and the tint. Then unfortunately with a standard codec (H.264, H.265 etc) the values are baked into the video, while with raw they are simple metadata that you can change in post. The great thing about RAW is that in post, besides adjusting the temperature, you can also adjust the tint, which is the green magenta axis. There is always the obstacle of storage space, which costs a lot. And with the current RAMageddon... P.S. The Sony X-OCN LT raw codec is impressive. It has a bitrate comparable to ALL-I H.265 codecs.

Hi Paul, What lenses do you use on your Red? PL cinema lenses? Classic Canon EF lenses? The big problem for those of us using classic housings is the lenses, and basically the control rings that operate the focus and also the zoom. In standard housings the control rings are designed to have an almost direct gear ratio, made for quick adjustments before taking a photo. In video, a direct ratio often leads to jerky movements and introduces micro vibrations. Cinema control rings use a geared down system instead, which requires a wider rotation to produce a small movement on the lens, providing smooth and steady transitions. The larger knobs offer better mechanical leverage and targeted inertia. This allows you to operate the control by resting your palm or using several fingers steadily, reducing the shakes typical of the two finger grip required by standard control rings. In addition, Nauticam cinema series control rings are designed to work with lenses that have standard 0.8 MOD gear teeth, with almost zero tolerance. Also, cinema lenses have hard stops at minimum focus and infinity. Normal photographic modern lenses have focus by wire, and unfortunately, speaking of my popular M43 lenses, the movement or focus speed is also variable, meaning the focus travel also depends on how fast you turn the focus ring. It is impossible to make transitions. Only on the most modern ones can you set them to linear and even set the range of movement, for example, 90, 120, or 180 degrees. That is why, in situations where you have to change the focus point manually, for example in macro, with normal housings and lenses people use the old trick of moving the housing back and forth just a little bit. It is a hard world for us 😁