Jump to content


Storker

Member Since 05 Dec 2012
Offline Last Active Mar 23 2015 10:36 PM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Geotagging and depth in pictures' EXIF data

19 March 2015 - 08:01 AM

Have a look at Subsurface, it will not write the depth into the exif,
but it will link your pictures to your dive profile.

Close, but no cigar. If at all possible, I geotag ALL my photos, UW and topside, with latitude, longitude and elevation/depth.

For people using Lightroom, it is easy to link any GPX file (tracker or phone)
to your pictures.

Good point. I use LR, but I started using Geosetter a couple of LR versions before Adobe built the LR geotagging module. Now, Geosetter is very well integrated in my workflow, so I'm still using that. Besides, the system for using "custom" (i.e. geographically correct) county/city/sublocation entries is fairly slick. Those automatic placenames aren't too reliable...

Maybe someone can come up with a LR module to read depth
from a dive log ...

All it takes is converting the depth data to a GPX file. And if you have the GPX file, you can use any geotagging-capable program.


--
Sent from my Android phone
Typos are a feature, not a bug

In Topic: Geotagging and depth in pictures' EXIF data

18 March 2015 - 11:41 AM

This could do what you want if you can arrange the PDC to write a GPX file with the depth information stored as a GPS altitude.  Then ExifTool will calculate the interpolated altitude for the proper synchronized time.

Great idea! If I could calibrate my PDC's depth log with "true" time and generate a GPX file from that I could input that GPX file to Geosetter, and the depth data would be inserted automagically into my pictures.

Now, my "problem" has been reduced to the generation of a GPX file from my PDC's depth log. Not a non-trivial issue for me considering my (lack of) programming skillz, but at least one step closer to a solution. Unless I'm handed a solution on a platter, I guess it's time to take a peek at GPX file syntax...


--
Sent from my Android phone
Typos are a feature, not a bug

In Topic: OMD EM5 and Pana 8mm Fisheye which dome

08 February 2015 - 01:38 AM

I have attached a link and photo for stoker regarding the new Olympus 8 mm F/1.8 fisheye PRO

Thanks.

If you look at the Nauticam port chart and the ZEN Underwater as well you will see that some of the ports are listed as dome ports and others are listed as fisheye dome ports. There is a clear difference in the curvature of the glass/acrylic between the two. This is not to say that the 8 mm fisheye can't be used in a dome port and that a lens like the Olympus 12 mm F/2, a killer lens can't be used in a fisheye dome port but performance may vary with each. 

I may be dense, but I don't think I really understood that one. Is the 4.33" a 'dome' or a 'fisheye dome'? I believed it's the latter.


--
Sent from my Android phone
Typos are a feature, not a bug

In Topic: OMD EM5 and Pana 8mm Fisheye which dome

07 February 2015 - 01:26 PM

the coming Olympus 8 mm F/1.8 fisheye..

That was interesting, I didnt't know about that one. Got a link? Do you know if it will work in the 4.33" dome?


--
Sent from my Android phone
Typos are a feature, not a bug

In Topic: OMD EM5 and Pana 8mm Fisheye which dome

01 February 2015 - 01:22 PM

The closer you get shorter the arms


That's obvious. I just don't see the big difference between a rectilinear WA and a FE (provided subject distance is similar)


--
Sent from my Android phone
Typos are a feature, not a bug