Content Type
Profiles
Articles
Events
Forums
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by RomiK
-
-
19 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:
I do not know but your raw file provided is hopelessly backlit
In general this looks more a case of poor understanding of lighting
You can replicate this in your garden and a flash
Shoot someone with the light behind you will see their face is dark. Put a flash in the mix and things change
You need strobes to shoot underwater photography because quality of light underwater is very poor.
Underwater photography ABC
I have advice for you too 🤣 go back to school and take a class in cognitive reading. Then come back to this thread, read the topic again and try to respond to the subject. Education ABC.🤣
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:
I shot a ruler in the sink there is nothing more proving for a lens than shooting at minimum distance. Shooting in the sea does not allow for objective measures as you dont have targets on the focal plane so you are also victim of depth of field.
If you want to see how a lens performs you need to go into a pool and shoot in controlled conditions
Even shooting in your bathtub is better
are you for real? 🤦♀️ bathtub or pool vs the real conditions?
5 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:Obviously shooting at f/6.3 etc does not feature underwater with a rectilinear lens
Your edges looks really poor even at f/16 because the dome is way off the right position. 2cm is quite a lot and the lens corrections are trying to counter the extra barrel distortion plus you have the usual field of curvature problems
I guess folks over at Nauticam have no clue on what to recommend to users of their products... They probably have no clue designing their products either... 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:
The one with the manta has the sunball in the frame there is nothing more backlit
Custom white balance does not work in those situation it never had it never will
You need strobes to bring the color in. White balance works in very good conditions down to 20-25 meters but only with light from behind and lens pointing down not up
thank you for advices 🙈🤦♀️ and so the other purple shots - see screenshot from sonys editor - where is the sun in those?
btw - if it's not too much to ask - could you please read what I write in its entirety and react to that. I was writing something about raw editors interpretations and also that video with the same WB came out right... so the camera clearly was able to interpret WB correctly. But the raw editors have problems...
-
12 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:
WACP-2 does not focus in air
Nauticam says otherwise 🙈
12 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:Stretched corners are typical result of wrong ports set up. When domes are properly positioned they perform well also at f/8
The issue with close up shots is field of curvature, you focus on the subject and then something else closer is blurry as result but this happens also with fisheye except those lenses are already curved so the two effects compensate somehow - this does not make edges any better
It may be personal preference, by stretched corners I meant mostly fins/legs on you sample above or fins on this sample below
-
13 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:
The edges are blurry even at f/16
The wide angle port 180mm does not contain the lens field of view.
The ideal extension would be 40mm however the lens would vignette
It works at 30mm much better but at 20mm as for those examples it is not great
In general though you are not going to be able to shoot a 14mm lens wider than f/8 with any type of adapter
Do you have pictures with 30mm or 40mm extension so you can back up what you say? I said no speculations and theories to muddy up this thread please. It is a sample thread intended to help people make decisions without external confusions. Thank you.
-
Just now, Interceptor121 said:
Backlit shots do not work well with custom white balance that is true also on the surface
If you want to set custom white balance do it with the light behind you or over your slate
As white balance is just metadata once you go too deep all sort of issue happen with the multiplications
Because red were near zero there is a lot of noise and when you multiply to bring it up you find more magenta than red because well there is no red left
I will download that file
... there was not much backlit on other two shots... and I think I know how to perform CWB 🙈 ... this thread is more about raw interpreters than anything else. If you would be interested in the other two raws I could provide them too... what was interesting to me was that LR was showing same WB yet interpreting raw files differently
maybe the real question is where is getting LR WB info from and how is it interpreting... perhaps software developers might chip in...
-
23 minutes ago, Davide DB said:
We already explained in other threads that all the world (including cinema productions) monitors in REC-709 while filming in Log or RAW. You keep assuming that all we have the same problems you think to have with your Sony.
BTW Among the countless professionals I follow, no one films in "HDR." They all film in RAW or Log with camera capable of real 14 stops of Dynamic Range and 10 bits (at a minimum). The most important thing is that in RAW you film in 4:4:4 i.e., you do not have chroma subsampling. At that point, in post production it is a matter of "preserving" this information during delivery. Hence HDR.
But again, they all, ALL monitor images in REC-709.
https://www.quora.com/Are-movies-shot-at-HDR-or-is-HDR-added-later
https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/cinema-raw-light/
It may be a name convention misuse from my side but I am trying to interpret what I see:
- looking at unprocessed log footage on both camera and external monitor gives basically white screen (with zebras if you choose)
- looking at log-to-709 conversion on the same monitors under same circumstances gives white areas (with zebras if you choose) - so you record the information but you don't see it
- looking at log-to-HLG(or PQ) conversion on the HDR monitor gives the most information on what are you recording and what you can recover in post no matter which delivery format you choose
So I am trying to give practical advice instead of discussing the conventions and I think what you see underwater matters the most.
I think we can also agree on calling Shinobi an HDR monitor as it offers (at least some) interpretation of what you are recording into an HDR color space. And that's what matters me thinks. Not absolute nits. So Supe with all magnificent 3000nits of claimed brightness will give just that - a brightness but not possibility to see what are you recording.
I hope I explained what I had in mind by HDR 🤷♂️. And I stand by that delivering in HDR is becoming a mainstream 🙂
23 minutes ago, Davide DB said:Regarding monitor weight: on my pocket, 900$ against 4K$ worths the hassle of some buoyancy compensation. If 3K$ makes no difference to you, that's fine but don't draw universal rules from it.
Shinobi+Nauticam is $250+$2000=$2250 - I think since diving and photographing already requires so much $$$ and taking monitor underwater so much extra effort that extra $1000 is totally worth it but that's me
23 minutes ago, Davide DB said:You are resuming a discussion from April 5.
What has not been clear since the last warning about personal attacks given by Tim & Chris?
Point taken...
-
I am inviting anyone to explore attached raw file shot with custom white balance in ambient light in about 30m depth. Any and all theories as to why colors are as such and the real ISO value are welcomed. Not even Sony's own editor was able to show blue water. My guess is the issue is with raw interpreters, the videos shot under the same white balance were showing fine.
Lightroom this sample file shows as shot at 50000/150, the other files from other screenshot were both showing 33000/150 and one showed water blue and the other purple... have fun 🙂
-
I started this topic to make it easier for users to search for answers. Please don't judge the images 🙈 they are here do showcase the lens optical performance in Nauticam's recommended setup. I used this lens on what supposed to be a check dive turned into a spectacular manta show in Addu atoll and the next boring dive next to a cleaning station.
Except for one the images are uncropped - the entire frame.
I would be anxious to see samples from this lens would provide on WACP-2 wide open to observe what - if any - benefits would water corrected optics bring. The real pictures would be awesome, not speculations and theories.
Good luck anyone selecting their lenses 🤙
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Jim Laurel said:
Some lovely work on your Instagram, Roman. I see you're a manta fan like me!
What dome are you using with that 16-35?
--JimThank you Jim 🤙 I am a (name) godfather to 5 mantas now! 😁. I am using 180mm glass and the camera is neutral with it and also with Shinobi monitor on it (no lights nothing just these two) 🤙
-
On 4/5/2024 at 9:22 AM, Interceptor121 said:
With regards to buoyancy you do not have data so should avoid commenting. For me bulk is drag i.e. volume weight can be balanced.
8 hours ago, Jim Laurel said:I don't normally use LUTs on the monitor underwater. This inexpensive monitor looks interesting, especially for the reasons Interceptor says (less drag/lower profile). Are there any reviews yet?
Guys, the drag with Nauticam will be actually less than Supe and other Chinese bricks. Their footprint is about the same and let's talk aerodynamics hydrodynamics there... plus that extra weight compensation must go somewhere and I tell you right away it takes more volume to compensate after the fact than if the object is already neutral ... and don't let me start on center of gravity 🙂 - even on neutral rigs try to make stable footage for example upwards 🙈
As for LUTs or at least some kind of log profile interpretation - in my experience they are necessary because otherwise you see like a white screen underwater with all that exposure compensation shooting log requires. Off course - I am talking Sony here and Canon for example treats HDMI monitors different - at least my R6 does - but then interpreting log to 709 doesn't give the best monitoring image either in case one wants to produce HDR video - which nowadays with iPhones and others is becoming mainstream.
@Interceptor121 I don't know about yourself but I did use this kind of brick on about 40 dives. Granted it was WED7 but the physics apply universally - battery weight, material weight, dimensions, air volume available... so it may be proper to abstain from 'avoid commenting' especially from you as I am not the one theorizing on this forum - (e.g. 14mm lens and 20/25/30 port extensions...)
-
7 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:
The wet optics have the same issues and you need to stop them down to f/11 they look different because they are distorted but they don't look any better
In fact some of my rectilinear lenses look way better than the water contact optics
https://wordpress.com/post/interceptor121.com/76548
you don't get better results out of water contact and mediocre optics because well the optics are mediocre and they do not get any better with something added on top
Rectilinear super wide are interesting for split shots which look funy with distorted optics
True for split shots one must choose the framing carefully though. I wasn’t quite happy with extremely stretched corners on a lot of shots so I think WWL WACP provide better wide angle experience. I was hoping to use this lens open for art of light only to realize that it is not meant to be. That’s why I would like to see results on WACP2 open.
-
On 4/24/2024 at 3:40 AM, Jim Laurel said:
I am using the A7S-III with the 28-60 and the WWL-1B. It's just about the perfect setup for video. I have also tried the WACP and the WACP-C, which my wife uses with her Canon 5DSR setup for stills. I think the WACP lenses have a small advantage for still images, but for video the WWL-1B works very well, with the advantage that you can take it on and off underwater.
Sony is the only full-frame system that can use the WWL-1B, which was originally designed for compact and micro 4/3 cameras. The compact size is a substantial benefit.
Here is some ungraded footage from a couple weeks ago. The edit was done in 2 hours on the passage back to San Jose, so it's pretty sloppy. It was intended for sharing among our friends on the boat. All of the footage is straight out of the camera.
Sony A7SIII, Nauticam A1 housing, Atomos Ninja in Nauticam Housing, Keldan Luna 8 (cyan module), Keldan 4X (AF12B Ambient), Sony 28-60 lens, Nauticam WWL-1B. Standard color profile, XAVC HS 4K 10 bit 4:2:2
I recorded the humpback whale song recorded with a stereo pair of Aquarian hydrophones on Sony PCM D100 recorder. First music track ("Contigo en las Distancia" by Trio Tres Joyas) is an audition track recorded by our producer Yenkys Gonzalez in 2017. Drone footage courtesy of Diego Medina.
There are pretty nice shots Jim, one can see you have steady hand 👍.
I have used on that trip 16-35F4PZ which was kinda sweet that I mapped zoom to buttons on the back of the housing (A1) and when I wanted to follow the subject and even continue to S35 mode for extra reach it was super easy.
-
1
-
-
The main benefit of this 14mm 1.8 topside is that it is tack corner sharp wide open. Talk astrophotography. So it’s pointless to consider its use underwater in the dome no matter the extension when you have to stop it down to like F13 to get something that reminds you of readable corners. Plus this wide rectilinear is useless for composition except of wrecks interiors and even that carefully. You get much better results with Nauticam wwl or wacp and mediocre lens. I would like to see though how this lens performs in WACP2 if open. That could be interesting.
-
6 hours ago, Whiskeyjack said:
Thanks for the input. I'm leaning towards the 14-42mm + WWL-1 for my wife and video and then I'll stick with my adapted 8-15mm for stills.
Awesome choice. Make sure you either get Nauticam extension for bayonet adapter release or you make your own (I did zip tie) - your wife will want to clean bubbles after each drop from zodiac - the buoyancy collar of wwl1B gets in the way.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Whiskeyjack said:
Thanks for all the advice everyone. It sounds like the 8mm fisheye may not be the best option. I'll start looking around for any of the following:
WWL1 + 14-42 kit lens
adapted Tokina 10-17mm
12-35mm with the 6" Nauticam dome
It will likely some down to if i can find any of these used for a good price!I would skip adapted versions if I could (owner of gh5s here...) , you want good fast AF and also for video... I always ask myself a question - how much the trip(s) cost? Would extra couple hundreds make a difference...
12-35 is not wide enough. If I'd be already adapted Canon 8-15 I'd keep it. For new buys the 14-42 WWL1 is option #1 and Leica 8-18 in a 180mm glass would be particularly sweet. The art of light Leica provides is hard to match 🤙
-
1 hour ago, ChipBPhoto said:
Nicely done! Never really considered Soccoro, but now may put it in the list.Thank you! It’s fun! The luck brings great opportunities for the big stuff photos and then there are dolphins 🙈😂
-
1
-
-
On 4/23/2024 at 3:02 AM, Whiskeyjack said:
Hi, planning a potential trip to Soccoro in early December. I'm wondering on what lenses/setup would be most appropriate. From what I can tell the mantas like to get up close and personal, but not sure about the rest of the marine life.
I have an adapted 8-15mm Canon Fisheye I shoot on my Olympus EM5-III that I think will cover most of my needs. Let me know if this is wrong. I only shoot stills.
My partner shoots video on a GH5-II. She currently only has the Olympus 8mm fisheye for wide angle, the rest of her lenses are for macro. She also has 2 Backscatter MW-4300 lights. Is this going to leave her disappointed? I imagine the 8mm fisheye might not have enough reach for sharks, etc. Would a 14-42mm kit lens with a Nauticam WWL be a better option? Also not sure if she'll regret not having pore powerful lights.
Any advise appreciated. Thanks!
Socorro is all about go big or go home. It's sharks, mantas, dolphins, shoals of fish. WWL1 - perfect! 8-15 canon on m43 - what's not to like? I wouldn't bother with other options. You need 16-35 equivalent and keep it simple. I had 16-35F4G on 180mm glass dome. Mantas and dolphins are very friendly and don't care about anything. Hammerheads - if you want to get closer to them switch off the video lights. They did not seem to be bothered with strobes. Here is quick teaser 🙂 (just quick stick in afternoon on the way back 🙈). Enjoy your trip 🤙
-
5
-
-
Last sample. Would anyone take guess which is which?🤷♂️ There are small whitish bubbles which I assume are on the outside, one visible big 'bubble' but the shape of aperture diaphragm and off course the flare. Is the big one really a bubble or is it a lens thing? Sony 28-60 WWL-1B
-
Another example of flare (HDR screenshot again), lower left corner develops even more with orange better defined... although truth is Hollywood is using flares even in post to dream up the shots 🙂 ... I would agree that there would be minimum of unwanted ugly flares from unintentionally positioned lights... the bubbles though piss me of at times... it takes one diver below... 🙈
-
32 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:
Nope
it is the combination of lens and port
see my hammerhead video lens shooting in the light and minimal issues with wwl-1 and panasonic
little more effort and producing screenshots eh?
32 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:problems reduce going from wacp-c to wacp to wwl-1 with the 28-60
No issues with 28mm and 32 flat port as this is practically on the glass
obviously any lens when pointed directly to a light source will have issues
it strikes me how naive some underwater photographers are they never tried the lens on its own and expect zero issues underwater
the 28-60 is quite decent against bright light on its own and obviously the additional optic can only make things worse but they are not as bad generally
the construction of all wacp wwl is identical the wet lens should do worse however it seems the air gap between lens and port is the most important factor as stray rays bounce into the extension
WWL-1B 28-60 3 bubbles and one flare... bubbles in the middle of dive no idea where they came from... HDR screenshot so dismiss colors exposure etc... This hassle alone with bubbles coming from literally nowhere makes me think of WACP.
It would be great to hear and see from WACP owners the flare thing...
-
29 minutes ago, Interceptor121 said:
Red spots in side position same identical are bubbles with on top ghosting
if the lens doesnt see the strobe it cannot happen you could see however a halo which is flare
flare=lack of contrast hazy image
Ghosting=shapes in the image typically of the color of the lens coating
Both can occur but without the bubble the wwl-1 doesn’t ghost easily even with the strobes in the image
It does ghost without bubbles and very easily, especially with light source - whether it be strobe or a sun in shallow depths - reflecting the surface of the lens which is quite easy given its shape ...
-
18 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:
It’s not flare
the two images have different situations with the sunball and the flash
yet the issue is in the same point so a bubble most likely
separate topic the wacp flares much more than the wwl-1 with the same 28-60 because of the gap inside the housing.
The surfaces are reflective even if the wet lens isnt this can create problems.
wwl-1 has the lens on the back of the port with no gap the lens has more contrast and less issues
wacp-c with less gap would be better but there is no 20mm extension for N100
It would help if you could back up your claims with your samples... otherwise it's like he said she said and empty theories. I would be particularly interested in WACP flare samples and particularly in that 'flares much more' part. Thanks
-
Hmm... this thread made me think and review... also because still weighing pros and cons of switching from WWL-1B to WACP-C... these are movie screen grabs (jpegs from HDR screen so...) from some dreamy shots I was trying to make and it seems the flare is a thing with WWL-1 (it typically appeared in the opposite corner away from the light source and was moving within the frame). It is on stills too. My WWL1 was sitting in a closet for a year as I was using 180mm glass on my trips so when reviewing it caught me by surprise. I am wondering what experience do WACP owners have?
Sony FE 14mm F1.8 GM in 180mm glass Nauticam port + 20mm extension real performance samples
in Photography Gear and Technique
Posted
ummm me thinks that this is what this thread topic was about - let readers decide themselves with no agenda.. that is until this 121 character decided to spoil it...