Shark and Yolanda Red Filter and Ambient Light Filter test clip - Graded

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaR7_HWUXTs

1. Apply Leeming LUT for CinelIke D

2. Automatic color correction (!)

3. Correct luma and chroma in scopes

Color is really good. So you were using a color filter and auto white balance?

Color is really good. So you were using a color filter and auto white balance?

I used the keldan -2 filter for the wwl-1 and white balanced in water on a white or gray card. Then applied automatic color correction in fcpx for the shots were it worked i kept it when it didn’t i rolled back

Then i used rgb parade to correct oversaturated reds when they existed

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks, do you mean Keldan Spectrum Filter SF-2? Did it affect the low-light perfomance much?

Thanks, do you mean Keldan Spectrum Filter SF-2? Did it affect the low-light perfomance much?

The filter works down to 15 meters and peaks between 6-12 in this interval I had no issues my ISO is capped at 800

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you think you could get the same results without filters or no?

Do you think you could get the same results without filters or no?

Would say custom white balance probably maxes out around 4 meters then cri drops

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Categorically not. The cameras white balance for the GH5 and most cameras tops at 9900K and frequently my raw files exceed 15K so a filter is a must

Would say custom white balance probably maxes out around 4 meters then cri drops

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really, look at dreilfish videos. Filters help? Yes under the right conditions. More trouble than what you get in the end? IMHO yes. Modern 10 bit 4-2-2 files give the flexibility to bring the footage where you want, when it is well captured and in shallow water (max 9 to 12 m depending on the sun position, water clarity, water color etc) without filters. Deeper its just you, your camera and your lights )))

I think this red camera, blue light filter is the new underwater video, photo hype. Something similar to Luts.

Not really, look at dreilfish videos. Filters help? Yes under the right conditions. More trouble than what you get in the end? IMHO yes. Modern 10 bit 4-2-2 files give the flexibility to bring the footage where you want, when it is well captured and in shallow water (max 9 to 12 m depending on the sun position, water clarity, water color etc) without filters. Deeper its just you, your camera and your lights )))

I think this red camera, blue light filter is the new underwater video, photo hype. Something similar to Luts.

Dreifish has 72000 lumens of light and looking deep in the frame the colors are missing which is the point of filters

Regarding hype sorry but I think you don’t really understand what you are talking about this is nothing new filters have been around a while

And I have said it pretty clear what is the sweet spot nor I pretend to use filters deeper than when they work

You asked if I could obtain the same colors without the filters and the answer is no otherwise I would have done it and I understand a thing or two on colours more than the average person

Regarding the 10 bit that is actually the real hype together with raw. Even with raw when the frame colors are unbalanced the results are worse otherwise why even Mustard et co shoot with filters at time?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dreifish has 72000 lumens of light and looking deep in the frame the colors are missing which is the point of filters

 

Regarding hype sorry but I think you don’t really understand what you are talking about this is nothing new filters have been around a while

And I have said it pretty clear what is the sweet spot nor I pretend to use filters deeper than when they work

You asked if I could obtain the same colors without the filters and the answer is no otherwise I would have done it and I understand a thing or two on colours more than the average person

Regarding the 10 bit that is actually the real hype together with raw. Even with raw when the frame colors are unbalanced the results are worse otherwise why even Mustard et co shoot with filters at time?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First of all please don't get offended and "aggressive" we all do our hobby here, right?

Sorry watching it through you tube on a 5K imac screen i don't see anything that cant be achieved without filters if you know your way around it. I can see some pretty bad color at the center of the frame from 0.30 to 0.37

Filters are not new that is for sure. The combination of camera filter combined with blue filters on the light is "new".

Then let's forget 10bit, 12 bit, 14bit files and raw and lets go back to 8bit low bitrate files and filters.... problem solved... I don't know why Mustard and co does it I know why the cinematographers of series like Blue Planet don't do it.

Anyway hope we somehow meet in a trip someday and talk about it over beers. Cheers

First of all please don't get offended and "aggressive" we all do our hobby here, right?

Sorry watching it through you tube on a 5K imac screen i don't see anything that cant be achieved without filters if you know your way around it. I can see some pretty bad color at the center of the frame from 0.30 to 0.37

Filters are not new that is for sure. The combination of camera filter combined with blue filters on the light is "new".

Then let's forget 10bit, 12 bit, 14bit files and raw and lets go back to 8bit low bitrate files and filters.... problem solved... I don't know why Mustard and co does it I know why the cinematographers of series like Blue Planet don't do it.

Anyway hope we somehow meet in a trip someday and talk about it over beers. Cheers

I don’t like to be associated with any hype the 0:30-0:37 is not corrected it was deeper than the working depth of the filter and the water was murky still decided to take the shot

I don’t know what equipment blue planet have certainly better than mine what I was trying to demonstrate here is that with limited cost you can get good results. I am not good at grading probably more can be done still I think this outcome is comparable with some ‘pro’ work that I see around at a lower cost which is the point I am trying to make

Re beer sure. Am thinking of actually organising a few experimental trips with sponsorship from few sources will keep you posted

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t like to be associated with any hype the 0:30-0:37 is not corrected it was deeper than the working depth of the filter and the water was murky still decided to take the shot

I don’t know what equipment blue planet have certainly better than mine what I was trying to demonstrate here is that with limited cost you can get good results. I am not good at grading probably more can be done still I think this outcome is comparable with some ‘pro’ work that I see around at a lower cost which is the point I am trying to make

Re beer sure. Am thinking of actually organising a few experimental trips with sponsorship from few sources will keep you posted

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed and my mistake for using the word "hype". I should have used the word "trend". Apologies English are not my native language.

Agreed we are all after the same end result. What I am trying to say is that whatever benefit you get from the filters is lost if you think about their overall cost, overall limitations and the added complication of putting them on and off. Now if you know that you will spend the dive at a specific location, a specific time, at specific depth etc etc etc then yes. But how many dives like that is the general diving/filming population does?

.30 to .37 is strange, its blue around the fishes and green in the area the fishes are. Cant understand it especially since it is not corrected.

Anyway looking forward to the trip and the beers.

 

.30 to .37 is strange, its blue around the fishes and green in the area the fishes are. Cant understand it especially since it is not corrected.

Anyway looking forward to the trip and the beers.

it is not white balanced but it is corrected in the color board. The green is the mass of fish behind it combined with murky water on that day

If you look at the other clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IvC1maFpE8&t=30s you see how it was if it makes sense

@lion2fish point about 10 bit and raw hype

The mft sensors can barely resolve full 24 bits (8 bitsx3) underwater due to colour loss you probably have a lower starting point anyway

So my take is that once you compress intra frame because billions or colours are not there the efficiency is quite high. The fact that the avc-i can take a lot of beating is due to the bitrate being quite high considering you dont actually have 10 bit colours and not to the 10 bit codec

Far more important is the 422 instead of 420 so for me 422 8 bit and 422 10 bit if you had them wont make any difference underwater except 422 8 bits does not exist

Talking about RAW for still pictures once I take a shot with the filter and it is exposed correctly at best I use clarity as the colours are already super vibrant and the contrast is very high.

When I take the same image without filter with custom white balance i get leas contrast and I need to work on the hue resulting in less pleasant colour

Having done extensive test with still images my conclusion is that for the depth range where the filter works I get better colours and saturation and contrast. Once I approach the 12-15 meters mark depending on conditions it becomes preferable with my GH5 to use lights that’s why the removable filter on the WWL-1 is so worthwhile

For the ambient filters on the lights I have my own solution with a compensation depth of 9 meters (not 6 or 12 like keldan). When am at 15 meters the light starts to be warmer and I really only need to get rid of the filter around 18 meters

My custom solution not so fancy is removable also on the lights

In a few months I am going to stress the concept over repeated dives down to 18 meters

A key consideration is noise you can’t trade noise with colours as usually when the ISO goes up the camera only resolves 6-7 bits so once I hit ISO 800 and am underexposed the filter goes out of the equation

Stills or video the tools to grade are there but getting the shot right in camera is key to both and filters in certain conditions improve the situation

Dissertation end! Lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Regarding the need for red filters on the GH5 for ambient light CWB work:

1. I'm a firm believer that ambient-light CWB only produces 'natural' results down to about 10-12m. Below that, the ambient light color spectrum is just too distorted, an no amount of global filtration or custom white balancing can make it appear natural. Plus, with the GH5, doing a CWB with a red filter below 12m often oversaturates the red channel and you end up with purple water you need to correct later.
2. Down to about 10m, you can set an adequate CWB on the GH5 without a filter. Will you get better results with a red-filter + CWB combination? Not from 0-6m. If you're only shooting ambient light + CWB down to 6m, you don't need to bother with red filters. From 6-12m, you get slightly better results with the red filter since the GH5's CWB doesn't seem to let you go above 10000k/+150 magenta. But it's a subtle difference, not a night-and-day one, and most obvious at the deeper end of the range (where colors start to look a bit desaturated and odd anyway). You probably could compensate for any difference with color correction in post.
3. Keldan makes a red filter that fits in between the flat port and WWL-1 if you use the combination, meaning it can be relatively easily removed or added during the dive. I was experimenting with it on my trips to Tubbataha in June (video will come soon). Unfortunately, in Tubbataha the reef top is usually in the 9-15m deep range, so it's borderline for ambient light shots. But I got some decent results with the red filter and CWB (doing the CWB no deeper than 12m). I wish I had done systematic tests showing what CWB vs. red filter + CWB looks like at 3m, 6m, 9m, 12m and 15m to settle the red filter question once and for all, but I didn't. It'll have to wait till my Red Sea trip in late October I guess.

Regarding the need for red filters on the GH5 for ambient light CWB work:

• I'm a firm believer that ambient-light CWB only produces 'natural' results down to about 10-12m. Below that, the ambient light color spectrum is just too distorted, an no amount of global filtration or custom white balancing can make it appear natural. Plus, with the GH5, doing a CWB with a red filter below 12m often oversaturates the red channel and you end up with purple water you need to correct later.
• Down to about 10m, you can set an adequate CWB on the GH5 without a filter. Will you get better results with a red-filter + CWB combination? Not from 0-6m. If you're only shooting ambient light + CWB down to 6m, you don't need to bother with red filters. From 6-12m, you get slightly better results with the red filter since the GH5's CWB doesn't seem to let you go above 10000k/+150 magenta. But it's a subtle difference, not a night-and-day one, and most obvious at the deeper end of the range (where colors start to look a bit desaturated and odd anyway). You probably could compensate for any difference with color correction in post.
• Keldan makes a red filter that fits in between the flat port and WWL-1 if you use the combination, meaning it can be relatively easily removed or added during the dive. I was experimenting with it on my trips to Tubbataha in June (video will come soon). Unfortunately, in Tubbataha the reef top is usually in the 9-15m deep range, so it's borderline for ambient light shots. But I got some decent results with the red filter and CWB (doing the CWB no deeper than 12m). I wish I had done systematic tests showing what CWB vs. red filter + CWB looks like at 3m, 6m, 9m, 12m and 15m to settle the red filter question once and for all, but I didn't. It'll have to wait till my Red Sea trip in late October I guess.

I have done the test in Egypt

3m no difference

6-9-12 better with filter

15 depends on conditions and filter

As generally there is no issue keeping the filter even at the surface at least the wwl-1 and actually taking two stops off for me helps there is no need to overcomplicate matters in bright bluewater

Greenwater combined with dark environment it is questionable the value of the filter if noise increases too much am planning some tests in UK

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Regarding the need for red filters on the GH5 for ambient light CWB work:

1. I'm a firm believer that ambient-light CWB only produces 'natural' results down to about 10-12m. Below that, the ambient light color spectrum is just too distorted, an no amount of global filtration or custom white balancing can make it appear natural. Plus, with the GH5, doing a CWB with a red filter below 12m often oversaturates the red channel and you end up with purple water you need to correct later.
2. Down to about 10m, you can set an adequate CWB on the GH5 without a filter. Will you get better results with a red-filter + CWB combination? Not from 0-6m. If you're only shooting ambient light + CWB down to 6m, you don't need to bother with red filters. From 6-12m, you get slightly better results with the red filter since the GH5's CWB doesn't seem to let you go above 10000k/+150 magenta. But it's a subtle difference, not a night-and-day one, and most obvious at the deeper end of the range (where colors start to look a bit desaturated and odd anyway). You probably could compensate for any difference with color correction in post.
3. Keldan makes a red filter that fits in between the flat port and WWL-1 if you use the combination, meaning it can be relatively easily removed or added during the dive. I was experimenting with it on my trips to Tubbataha in June (video will come soon). Unfortunately, in Tubbataha the reef top is usually in the 9-15m deep range, so it's borderline for ambient light shots. But I got some decent results with the red filter and CWB (doing the CWB no deeper than 12m). I wish I had done systematic tests showing what CWB vs. red filter + CWB looks like at 3m, 6m, 9m, 12m and 15m to settle the red filter question once and for all, but I didn't. It'll have to wait till my Red Sea trip in late October I guess.

 

Could not agree more. So in my mind the way i interpret it is: too much trouble for questionable or marginal better results. Now if you add on the light filters then its even more trouble. But that is me, others have their opinion.

This is amazing! May I know your complete set up? Thanks!

Could not agree more. So in my mind the way i interpret it is: too much trouble for questionable or marginal better results. Now if you add on the light filters then its even more trouble. But that is me, others have their opinion.

1. You don’t know until you try

2. In the first 12 meters most time you have too much light so taking two stops off means you shoot at the best aperture for your lens instead of going to values that generate diffraction

Ultimately the footage looks better and judging from the response I have is noticeable not subtle

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could not agree more. So in my mind the way i interpret it is: too much trouble for questionable or marginal better results. Now if you add on the light filters then its even more trouble. But that is me, others have their opinion.