Yeah...that's what I said... cuz you have your flat port's image is not coming from the subject itself...it is coming from another lens that has already reduced the size of its image bcuz it went from air to water....so u end up with no image size change....your flat port magnifies that unmagnified image, and result image size is 1x.He he he, me still confuse on lens 101.
Just to repeat.
With water or air ( I managed to seal the gap ), the Inon H100 on RX100 is the same FOV underwater.
Me tested already.
.
RX100 with Inon UWL-H100 Wide Angle
#21
Posted 29 October 2012 - 08:14 AM
#22
Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:36 AM
If the dome was meant to keep that fov where are have the 34.2 degrees been lost?
Coverage underwater with dome lens is less than coverage in air because water filling the space between the housing port and the UWL-100 rear element increases the effective focal length of the camera lens
Edited by Interceptor121, 29 October 2012 - 09:37 AM.
#23
Posted 29 October 2012 - 09:40 PM
●Dual use (land/underwater) wide conversion lens specially designed for 28mm wide camera (35mm film equivalent). The maximum view angle is 100.8° underwater for wide imaging and 179° on land for fish-eye imaging.
●Optional "Dome Lens Unit II for UWL-H100" further increases maximum view angle to 144.8° underwater for semi-fisheye imaging.
We know all viewing underwater get magnified. Same for our camera lens right ?
Assume 33% magnification.
Is it possible that the DOME recovered back the lost magnification due to water, but since it is in water and must also experience magnification by water and hence only 144.8 degrees achieved or exta 40 degrees ? If say Inon is accurate ( I am sure they are ) 78.2 degrees lost from H100 while in water compared air, is then re-gained by DOME but also lost to water magnification. So overall the DOME actually is not bad, yes ?
I don't know if this will help
http://www.camerasun...on-uwlh100-28ld
http://scubageek.com...es/wwwbigr.html
Sorry me lens dummy.
.
Edited by SPP, 29 October 2012 - 09:43 PM.
#24
Posted 29 October 2012 - 11:17 PM
As the camera has a focal multiplier of 2.7 is like you zoomed in additional 1.83 mm at 35mm equivalent so you are now at 30mm before hitting the lens and not anymore 28mm as you were in air. This explains why you still loose some field of view
End of the lesson!
#25
Posted 30 October 2012 - 06:49 AM
Is that likely to work?
//O
#26
Posted 30 October 2012 - 07:19 AM
#27
Posted 30 October 2012 - 12:58 PM
not sure how you get focal multipler of 2.7 or 2.678. But if an object looks bigger, it should look like it is closer, not farther away.The lost field of view compared to air depends on the water between the port and the back of the wet lens. Say that in air that distance is 2mm once you put it with water that becomes 2*1.339=2.678
As the camera has a focal multiplier of 2.7 is like you zoomed in additional 1.83 mm at 35mm equivalent so you are now at 30mm before hitting the lens and not anymore 28mm as you were in air. This explains why you still loose some field of view
End of the lesson!
There is a point where when you have a wider lens, all you are going to see is vignetting from the edge of the wet lens. I am not sure how your housing/lens relationship interact with the wet lens, but with mine, even if I pull the wet lens forward 5mm, there is no vignetting in its widest setting, so there is a little bit of extra built into the wet lens.
Anyway, flat port multipler is not linear. If you put an object 0.1mm in front of a flat port, it will not magically look 1.33x bigger. If it does, any object that is stuck to the front of your mask, then suddenly pulled away ever so slightly, will have a drastic jump in image size, which it don't.
For a port to wet lens and port to camera lens of 2mm, and a nodal point of 26mm (which seems to be my camera's nodal point), the magnification effect by the water is only 1.016, which is 1.6%. That is too small to account for any variation in field of view (this doesnt take into account of the subject getting demagnified when the light goes from air to water medium of the rear of the wet lens(like looking at one's eyes thru scuba mask).
I guess you have to see what the S&S wet lens' rear element's OD and the image size it throws out (should be pretty much the diameter of the rear element at close range. Should be larger than your camera's lens, and it should be able to mount very close to the rear port. The exit pupil has to be a bit larger than the camera's front element. Putting a cameraphone's lens 1 inch behind the wet lens will produce much better result than putting a large format camera's lens at the same distance.Slightly different topic, but I wonder whether it is feasible to convert my S&S DX-1G wet lens to a Nauticam RX100 housing. It works well with that 24mm lens and has the inner lens diameter 42mm, which seems big enough. The S&S plastic bayonet unscrews and a well centered 67 to 50 something step up ring will fit using the original screws with some careful drilling.
Is that likely to work?
//O
#28
Posted 30 October 2012 - 01:08 PM
The 2mm space does not change but due to water magnification is like zooming in and therefore loosing field of view as if the lens was more extended than it really is.
This is pretty crystal to me am not sure why it isn't to you but maybe you can have a word with Inon yourself to be more happy also cameras underwater website is quite helpful
not sure how you get focal multipler of 2.7 or 2.678. But if an object looks bigger, it should look like it is closer, not farther away.
There is a point where when you have a wider lens, all you are going to see is vignetting from the edge of the wet lens. I am not sure how your housing/lens relationship interact with the wet lens, but with mine, even if I pull the wet lens forward 5mm, there is no vignetting in its widest setting, so there is a little bit of extra built into the wet lens.
Anyway, flat port multipler is not linear. If you put an object 0.1mm in front of a flat port, it will not magically look 1.33x bigger. If it does, any object that is stuck to the front of your mask, then suddenly pulled away ever so slightly, will have a drastic jump in image size, which it don't.
For a port to wet lens and port to camera lens of 2mm, and a nodal point of 26mm (which seems to be my camera's nodal point), the magnification effect by the water is only 1.016, which is 1.6%. That is too small to account for any variation in field of view (this doesnt take into account of the subject getting demagnified when the light goes from air to water medium of the rear of the wet lens(like looking at one's eyes thru scuba mask).
Edited by Interceptor121, 30 October 2012 - 01:09 PM.
#29
Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:31 PM
http://scubageek.com/articles/wwwclosr.html.
But you have to take into account of the camera lens to port distance and camera lens to nodal point (the location inside the lens where the image forms, before it gets manipulated and/or extended to re-form the image at the sensor location).
Thus, if you take all that into account, with 2mm spacing from wet lens to port and 2mm spacing from port to camera lens, and 26mm nodal point, the magnification will be only 1.6%. Formula here:
http://scubageek.com/articles/wwwbigr.html
Here is an old writeup on this forum on the wide angle wet lens:
http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=23678
It talk about all the stuff I mentioned, such as the need for constant camera lens to wet lens distance (as indicated by my indication of internal zooming), nodal point sensitivity (issues when zooming to telephoto range), large rear element requirement (large exit pupil).
And a very simple description of the lens, with above and under water ray tracing:
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/phgraph/film.htm#rebikoff
#30
Posted 31 October 2012 - 12:56 PM
No confusion
I think you got the numbers backward. Subject would appear 25% closer:
http://scubageek.com/articles/wwwclosr.html.
But you have to take into account of the camera lens to port distance and camera lens to nodal point (the location inside the lens where the image forms, before it gets manipulated and/or extended to re-form the image at the sensor location).
Thus, if you take all that into account, with 2mm spacing from wet lens to port and 2mm spacing from port to camera lens, and 26mm nodal point, the magnification will be only 1.6%. Formula here:
http://scubageek.com/articles/wwwbigr.html
Here is an old writeup on this forum on the wide angle wet lens:
http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=23678
It talk about all the stuff I mentioned, such as the need for constant camera lens to wet lens distance (as indicated by my indication of internal zooming), nodal point sensitivity (issues when zooming to telephoto range), large rear element requirement (large exit pupil).
And a very simple description of the lens, with above and under water ray tracing:
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/phgraph/film.htm#rebikoff
#31
Posted 01 November 2012 - 12:16 AM
#32
Posted 01 November 2012 - 01:12 AM
#33
Posted 01 November 2012 - 01:42 AM
nauticam, thanks.Which housing?
#34
Posted 01 November 2012 - 02:40 AM
#35
Posted 01 November 2012 - 11:05 PM
Thanks.Type 2
#36
Posted 02 November 2012 - 01:47 AM
below is type 1 with type 2 description
http://reefphoto.com...roducts_id=5313
It said Type 1 is for different housing.
Have fun shopping my man.......
#37
Posted 02 November 2012 - 04:47 AM
Cheers
/O
Slightly different topic, but I wonder whether it is feasible to convert my S&S DX-1G wet lens to a Nauticam RX100 housing. It works well with that 24mm lens and has the inner lens diameter 42mm, which seems big enough. The S&S plastic bayonet unscrews and a well centered 67 to 50 something step up ring will fit using the original screws with some careful drilling.
Is that likely to work?
//O
I guess you have to see what the S&S wet lens' rear element's OD and the image size it throws out (should be pretty much the diameter of the rear element at close range. Should be larger than your camera's lens, and it should be able to mount very close to the rear port. The exit pupil has to be a bit larger than the camera's front element. Putting a cameraphone's lens 1 inch behind the wet lens will produce much better result than putting a large format camera's lens at the same distance.
#38
Posted 02 November 2012 - 06:07 AM
42 mm is plenty however you will need to see how close will the lens be to the portOn modifying the S&S baynet lens. As I said the rear lens element is 42mm in diameter, what is the diameter of lenses that currenlt are know to work, such as the UWL-H100?
Cheers
/O
What's the diameter of the thread on the lens?
#39
Posted 08 November 2012 - 10:42 AM
Thanks a lot
Jens
#40
Posted 08 November 2012 - 11:45 AM
I haven't had the opportunity to try the lens itself however I wrote something on my blog interceptor121.wordpress.com with regards to video modesAny idea if RX100 will work with the UWL-100 Achromat type 2? (ie. not the UWL-H100)
Thanks a lot
Jens
I believe it will work well for video in active mode but vignette for stills until approximately 32mm zoom
