RomiK

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?

Strobes... could be either one really... this from wwl-1B... I think I was shooting this jelly between the strobes, they were little up front... but then with some luck the resulting crop may give that... 🙂

😱 uh oh the rule of thumbs is not to mess up with implants once implanted! It's not like you can change them at will. Your friend must have been real unfortunate as such strong aversion is very rare - see below. I would say this - there are several manufacturers of trifocals, some better some worse. Zeiss is one of the best but more below - there several applications for different specifics. One is night drivers. I you are a night driver they should recommend certain kind which is not as good in daylight but is more suitable for night drivers. For Zeiss AT Lisa types - yes, there are circular artifacts coming from spot lights in certain conditions (not oncoming traffic but imagine guiding lights in tunnels, lights lighting the street if you look directly at them... - the light must be real tiny intensive spot). But that's nothing for people driving through the night on average. And also the tolerance to these build over time. Professional truck drivers with night shifts - might be an issue. Might get too tired before get used to it and develop a block and aversion. Regular folks riding sometimes - nothing that difficult. - Another example - trifocals are light hungry - so if you work in a warehouse with less then average contrast light conditions you may get tired. When I go shopping into these big warehouses like Costco, Makro etc I always am hungry for light. Night vision is fine as there is - surprisingly - enough contrast. Fog is fine as - surprisingly - the daylight has a lot of intensity. But warehouses are less than ideal. But again - still nothing that would cut into benefits trifocals bring to life. - obviously like with everything all things are person specific. But given the amount of implants your friend must have been one of the very very unfortunate - either he got wrong type of IOLs given his profession or his mind could not overcome this which could happen but it is like one in tens of thousands. So my advice is not be scared of by negative experiences, these are really really rare but like in marketing - one satisfied customer will bring 10 and one dissatisfied will repel 1000 I reiterate for everyone interested - do it (at least the consultation) but also do your research as far as your profession and lifestyle.

I'd have to point you to some reading through google search... the design of lenses is circular ... so wherever you look and point your sight to you see sharp - within the lens parameters... With single or dual focus lenses you still needed glasses mostly for near reading as the lenses were set to see far. With trifocals no more, no glasses needed... I could really write pages but google better for that... the main takeaway is it works, the surgery is safe, performed annually on millions and the side effects are none. Yes there are some artifacts but in a manner which will not affect your life or quality of vision. The net is still huge benefit.

Thank you @TimG . To ease up worries for anyone and send you guys to your ophthalmologist for consultation 🙂 I would like to add that IOL replacement - or a cataract surgery as it is known - is a standard procedure and technology which has been there since 1950ies and more about it for example here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataract_surgery Roughly half of population will undergo this surgery anyway because of a deterioration of lens due to age. I did it rather early at the age of 46 for convenience - couldn't stand wearing glasses during sport activities - and the team sold me on that idea just by stating that likely I'd have to go through that procedure anyway and this way I might enjoy clear vision much longer before death 🤣 From a diver's perspective there are no limits on this activity, you can dive the same 100m depths as before without worries 🤣. Photographers will still able to use their expensive viewfinders no change but the ones using the monitors will have to adjust to the fact that they will no longer focus by eyes - they will focus with their hands. Minimal focus distance is still pretty close, much much closer than before. I see clearly pixels on my retina monitor from the distance of 30cm. But because I no longer focus by eyes but by a distance to a subject (hence focusing by hands) the next crisp focus distance is - say - 50cm and so on. Between those the vision is like you compare sharpness of cheap zoom with a sharp prime. Ask you doctor about the Zeiss AT Lisa as that is the name of trifocal lenses I have, trifocals are on the market since 2012 roughly. Either way you won't need to spend big on prescription masks so you might actually save money 😁. Good luck 🤞.

For all aging folks with presbyopia I wanted to share my experience with IOLs which I have at the age of 56 for almost 10 years now. I know it's a controversial issue for some. Nevertheless I would recommend this solution to anyone whom their doctor would approve this. It has its own challenges and things to adjust to but by far - and not only for divers - it is the best thing they could do to solve the problem. Happy diving.

The mounting also very much depends on negative buoyancy it adds. Backscatter states -600g, one YT reviewer said "heavy" - it would be interesting to get accurate number. NA-A1 with 180mm glass and Shinobi are neutral, I used it frequently like this. (minus the beer 🤣) It also depends on style of diving. I can jump with mine from live aboard and carry it comfortably on a zodiac. Ball mounts are not that friendly. And then it also depends on the state of your vision. I have IOL implants so I focus by hands. Untreated presbyopia will move your focus point further so back mounting for macro won't be that useful. Many factors at play.

@Davide DB I don't dispute the theory behind HDR and bare necessities and principle it describes. I am disputing the practical world use of such and encouraging anyone to see it for themselves. Our eyes are not placed in darkness nor we consume the content in the darkness. And so the need for the high brightness HDR displays is very much obvious and justified. Blacks will always be blacks but the highs will have different impact based on relative luminosity around. And so back to HDR images - by the ability to display high dynamic range and the highs especially during the content consumption is making drastic impact - in a positive way - on the images impact. with SDR image (Jpeg or on SDR screen) cranking up the brightness will only bring the whole image up. On 400nits HDR screen the highs will stop short of having meaningful impact even in room with average lightning as the human eye will perceive the brightness relatively... So that's my line of thinking why HDR images will take over the online world soon. Not that important for all of us who print the images and sell them 🙂 but for online world and marketing it will be super important.

Here is a raw file if you want to take a crack at SDR / HDR development and see for yourself. It's exposed a bit to the right but not clipping. Myself I see differences when .avif displayed on Apple Studio display 600 nits and XDR Pro with 1600 nits. 20240321-113515.ARW

I will try to help you to see HDR image using SDR tools 🙈😁 it's not perfect but it may show the spirit of it. I just took picture from the HDR 1600nits screen and converted HEIC into JPEG. While it might not show the luminance it shows details on the sharks back which you won't be able to get and display using SDR approach - even if you would be masking . Plus that luminance creates a real depth for the image but that can't be seen using SDR tools ...

BTW none of you bothered to download and see my .avif image from the other topic (shows zero downloads) - that one actually shows nicely also the point why you need high brightness HDR display... I guess it's difficult to discuss a topic without seeing what is topic about. Otherwise we can continue this discussion in perpetuity as none of the parties seems to understand what the other one has in mind. I am bringing examples at least... but nobody bothers to watch them (disclaimer though - they only show in specific HDR matching conditions - screen, software)

Guys, actually all of you, please read that text on picture one more time and try to put it into perspective. I din't choose it random nor did PCMag guys hunted for the biggest number. The key for you to understand that test and why is relevant for HDR are those percentages of white and that it was HDR signal (whether provided by AppleTV or what IDK)... So please read it again, think it through and hit me again... in the context of what I was saying about why the peak brightness is important for HDR...

So enlighten me... why is that they drool over nits over at PCMag? And why is LG putting out TVs with this anyway? Or is it not LG among the best as they exceed 600nits? Isn't this peak brightness actual useful in HDR world? Or would you prefer to watch 243 nits white screen? I am kinda getting confused 🙂

Your recommendation to watch HDR content on 400-500nits ... what can I say... it just show kinda disconnect between your theory and the reality... You seem to be good to put arguments on paper. In real life though, if it was as you say, OLED HDR TVs would not be pushing range of 1300 nits give or take and the newest wouldn't go for 2000 - even though OLEDs provide pitch blacks. And it would be good for the environment no? Saved energy. Yeah and Apple which obviously have no clue about movies and pictures wouldn't reequipping their laptops and professional monitors with 1600nits screens... Yeah, not really needed for grading HDR movies and pictures🤦‍♀️ But from some reason the market concluded they need indeed the higher brightness to fully capture HDR requested. My samples were from 7m depth with sand rocks bottom and sun above. Really not that many chances for blacks. And so 450nits screen wouldn't be able to display what was it like there even if you would watch it in pitch dark. Technically? Doubt it. Perception-wise? Absolutely not. And so I would suggest to get over the fact that not everything can be expressed in charts and the real world is different. The real world is our eyes and their perceptions. And again nitpicking on my words in pedantic way is like not helping - you knew what I meant by high brightness HDR but you just chose to pick what you liked from it. So thank you for the lecture about the dynamic range but it was unnecessary.

well I offered raw files as you said the resulting images were just overexposed and clipped pieces of garbage 🤣 and that was before we learned you were looking at HDR files on an SDR display ... perhaps you learned something new too 🤣 so perhaps next time refrain from commenting until you actually see the subject of debate in the environment it was intended for - in this case it was high brightness HDR screen in HDR profile and correct software - until you do that the debate held over the analysis charts is pointless, you need to see HDR to believe it. Or perhaps there is a disconnect between what you and I understand by HDR image. For me it is a raw file rendition fully benefitting from high brightness high dynamic range screen, not some 450nits display even if it was 10bit. I take it many people understand by HDR those beautiful sunset images that you can print. But that is more of a tone mapping in my dictionary, not HDR, but we all have our own dictionaries. other than that I believe that the topic subject is exhausted and I am looking forward to Sony's ISO debate in a different forum and different time.

Who was talking about ISO in the thread about HDR pictures ? 🙈 It has nothing to do why we discuss HDR imagery. You just muddy up the topic subject again. You say HDR is of a little to no value for underwater photos so ok, stick to this, sit back, relax and watch how HDR photos will take over the online world the same way as video is doing. It's that simple. No need to muddy up the topic subject. Besides research a bit more on Sony's approach to ISO, you will discover some new world a bit different from what you thought. I won't muddy up this thread explaining you this. So if you have nothing to say to HDR photos and cannot demonstrate that HDR images made from raw files posted would not be better or would be inferior to SDR images made from the same files then it is easy to just stay quiet. All other things you are trying to say just spoil the topic subject and frankly are irrelevant.

This is where and what I had in mind saying that technical analysis do not say the whole story in terms of resulting HDR image. (FYI It just happened so that these images were shot with PP HLG as I was testing different scenarios of using Shinobi for video and picture capture. One way was Slog3 for both video and stills, the other HLG for both and I ended up with something else anyway. It's a matter of (in)accessibility of shin obi settings underwater but we covered that elsewhere on this forum.) But as you pointed out the raw processor does not do anything with picture profile so recorded image still has its 14bit information. And what we do with this information on HDR capable screen is the whole point of HDR grade. So the image may be flat as you shown above but it does not mean that the place where image was taken was flat. There were sun rays traveling through water and over sand, there were bubbles reflecting. On HDR screen we can extract relevant information from the raw file and display them to mimic actual condition. This is impossible on SDR screen and in SDR process as there are limits on brightness and colors available for display we could agree. And then there is a problem in rendering the HDR image as unlike video the still image HDR standards are yet to be written and compatibility wars to be won. So for now it's .avif and instagram even though it has its limit as I shown in my newest post.

The attached file will render perfectly fine on iPhone 13Pro and newer as well as on Chrome browser on MacBook Pro XDR screens. But unlike other HDR images I posted on my Instagram account it will render horribly in Instagram app as well as Instagram page looked in Chrome browser. https://www.instagram.com/p/C50fsLXNkeA/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== It's a good showcase imho of why the HDR photography is going to be the next 'thing' in an online world as the sun reflections and it's intensity on shark's skin are giving (otherwise ordinary) image a new depth. But it also shows this area is still developing. 20240321-113515.avif

Do we have double standards here or was it him who called me idiot and stupid first? When you read this topic from the beginning it was him in his second answer diverting from the topic subject and starting personal attacks: 'you make a lot of random assertions that make me conclude you really don’t understand the topic at all especially how it is implemented as your statement show a lot of confusion' ... and the discussion went south from there. The problem with pedantic characters like him is that by presenting their one-sided views and disregarding other views which they don't know about or disagree with they tend to spoil the mood of the community. Unless you put him on the leash you might as well call waterpixels.net community 'Interceptor121 private forum'. See in this topic case he called the images overblown overexposed only to find out that they were not overexposed at the end. But what a mess in the meantime... he even lies about what he views the images on only to admit that for this and that reason he is not using his HDR monitor... and so he makes flat out statements and package them inside some mud made from technical terms ... and do I call him stupid even at this point?

Great! Then stop being lazy and download that raw file which up until now showed zero downloads and show us all how seriously clipped it is and what a garbage it is. And while at it do it with this attached file which is the one you called garbage - or its avif Now look up Merriam Webster definition of pedantic Now see yourself focusing on highlights and whites at -100 completely disregarding the color profile listed which meant there was a curve thrown at the raw file which needed to be corrected. Not the raw file itself but its version processed with that custom Slog3 curve... See where I am getting? you talk zeros and completely disregards ones... you talk ones and completely disregards twos... one thing for sure - you can't grade HDR image on SDR profiled monitor and rely only on visual tools... that's a nogo 20240319-113107.ARW

he (Massimo) is getting red for sure... but what do you do with a pedantic man who is spoiling the subject? He's unstoppable!🙈

🤣🤣 you are nonstop! 🤣🤣 and you don't even have HDR monitor 🤣 - your screenshots gave you up - just look below 🤣 maybe also time to learn Lightroom interface a bit - or you do have one and run it in an SDR mode without even knowing about it 🤣 dunno which is worse 🤣 You should really refrain from commenting on things you don't understand... and there is a lot of it... that .avif image which you called overexposed garbage, you know the second one with sharks, it is not an art but it is a good demo of the HDR aspect of things. But of course - without viewing it on HDR monitor you will see just an SDR version of it (little lesson for you - .avif includes meta for different displays) and without viewing it on Chrome browser you will see total garbage which is what you probably did. So not understanding what you talk about and kinda lying about the tools seems like a real issue to me... MacBook Pro 14 XDR display Apple XDR Pro Display SDR display ... and a screenshot from you 🤣 ... see, Lightroom when running on SDR monitor will display that HDR range red... 🤣 when you press that HDR button it does not mean that miracles happen and your monitor will jump into HDR mode 🤣 if you use MacBook XDR monitor and using say photography profile P3D65 it is SDR... and then you try to comment on HDR images? What a mess 🤣

I would love nothing more than to stay on the subject, which was HDR underwater photography, but this @Interceptor121 character is acting like a real internet troll. He clearly does not have a display - even if it was a mobile phone - to view HDR images on yet he concludes that the images are overexposed and bad here and there just based on visual tools of software he is using wrong anyway and completely messes up the thread subject. PLEASE someone with iPhone Pro or MacBook Pro 14/16 tell him that the .avif posted here are not overexposed so he could give it a rest and stop annoying argumenting why it can't be... And you @Interceptor121 why don't you finally post exact make and model of the displays you use to judge HDR content. Nothing to be ashamed of if you have the right tools. And if not why don't you just shut up? It is simple as that. And in all your greatness 🙈 you failed to discover a little dirty secret of the test image above and that is that it was shot in (by you for stills despised) SLog3 profile and processed using custom Slog3 to P3 LUT.... You just can't understand and process in your head that the things can be done a bit different in this world 🙈

Uh oh it’s worse than I thought 😂😂😂 I’ve tried to help but no more 🤦‍♀️ you really are full of …. Listen it’s ok to say you can’t afford to buy stuff but do not hide your own inability behind a million reasons why this or that could or could not work 🤦‍♀️. Off course you can’t see damned sh.. as you don’t have the monitor to see so you you conclude in your own little brain that the things just can’t be 😂😂😂 but that’s ok we all need to live in the world of trolls … 🤦‍♀️

btw I've had a feeling that you will try to respond with lots of your - ehm - arguments (🤣) so before you do here is a demonstration of those Lightroom visual tools in practice. Here is Tiger ZOO in SDR, how the Lightroom displays SDR and visualize HDR and off course HDR image in attachment 🙂 null 20240319-113107.avif