Jump to content

TmxDiver

Member
  • Content Count

    152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by TmxDiver

  1. I don't mind the feedback at all. Two quick notes: 1) I agree with the idea of using the best tools available -- subject to a cost/benefit analysis. For example, I was using Big Blue lights and recently bought some Keldan 8x 18k lights. They are far superior and produce light which has no hard edges, the color is nicer, etc. However, they also cost about 2x the Big Blue lights. 2) In terms of the WACP, it is a cost/benefit analysis for me. It probably would have been a better image but it weights ~3x a WWL-1B (on land) and costs ~ 4x (?) a WWL1-B and I'm not sure the image would be 4x better. I'm also often traveling so weight and size matter (in addition to being a factor in the conditions/places I'm often diving with current and small places). For me personally, the cost/benefit equation doesn't work and I have considered "upgrading" to the WACP. If somebody were to loan me one and asked me to evaluate it for deep wreck diving, I'd do it. - brett PS - @adamhanlon I am curious as to why the WACP would be "easier to use" than the WWL-1B?
  2. @TimG - Agreed. Here is a recent photo of the bow of the HMS Southwold in Malta (~ 65m). Could it be better? Yup, you bet. I had to boost shadows to get the starboard side of the bow a bit better defined which brought out some backscatter against the bow and the sand. The corners are probably blurred but does it matter? Not really IMHO. I wish the diver was a little closer and more in focus but I was dealing with depth of field issues. It is meant to evoke a feeling and I think it does a reasonable job of that. We were at the end of our dive heading back to the downline and had over an hour of deco to do but I wanted to get the shot. Setup is a Sony a7rIV with the WWL1-B. 28mm, 1/60th, f 9.0, ISO 800. I had Retra strobes but was shooing natural light. - brett
  3. Within reason. Generally, I'm trying to identify features that are in the center of the frame (e.g., number of cylinders in an engine, number of oil coolers, name or number on a boat, hub design on a landing gear, etc.). Also, given the type of photographs I take, the corners are often either water or sand. That doesn't mean I don't want good gear to take photos it just means I personally value the center of the frame more than the edges for what I'm doing. This is the reason that I generally shoot with the WWL-C or WWL-1B. Could I get sharper corners with a 230mm dome and good high-quality wide angle lens? Most likely. Would I want to haul that thing around and then also try to do some of the penetration I do into shipwrecks? Heck no. I also prefer rectilinear for what I shoot which adds complexity. I don't get that with the WWL lenses but they are not nearly as distorted as a fisheye either. - brett
  4. I think it is highly individualistic and somewhat dependent upon the situation and conditions. I dive almost exclusively on wrecks and lately have been finding, researching, and documenting new wrecks in Southern California. https://wreckedinmyrevo.com/category/new-discovery/ We just found a new P-38 that crashed nearly 80 years ago in Nov 1943 that I will be posting about on Monday with detailed pictures and a photogrammetry model. Conditions here in Southern California can be "iffy" at best sometimes (dark, current, cold, lot of particulate matter, deep, etc). Plus, you never even know what you will find. One time we thought the target was an airplane and it ended up being a whale fall. How can you plan for that? https://wreckedinmyrevo.com/2021/08/11/loras-point-loma-whalefall-point-loma-180-fsw/ Under the above conditions, my primary "job" is to keep myself alive. 90m+ deep in 50F water with deco accumulating fast, my primary concern isn't if I have some backscatter. However, when I'm diving in a location with warmer water and amazing visibility, then I tend to spend more time working on photos -- even if it means more deco. Examples are my recent wreck diving trips to Palau, Vis Croatia, and Malta (all are fully documented on the above blog site). So, to sum it up, I think the answer as usual is "it depends...." and some of that is the "why" you are taking the pictures. - brett
  5. Perfect, thanks for the detailed answer @Phil Rudin.
  6. @Phil Rudin Thanks for the update, Phil. I just took a quick look at the Nauticam N100 port chart and didn't see this lens listed. What port did you use it with (if you were using Nauticam) when you had the S&S correction lens attached? I'm assuming one of the N100-N120 ports? - brett
  7. For me, pictures inside a wreck when using a flash (and not continuous video light). - brett
  8. I use the Fisheye Fix Neo Mini 1000 SWR. It is pretty close to what you want: 100 degree in wide mode (vs 120) 30 degree in spot mode (vs 10) Integrated red mode It has a YS adapter that I put a ball mount onto. I'm pretty sure it uses an 18650 battery (I usually just plug mine into the micro USB port to charge the battery) In addition, it also has different power output levels (100-75-50-25) and has an auto shut-off mode that detects the flash and turns of for a second or two. I find it very compact and easy to use. - brett
  9. Thanks, Larry. I have a question: When you use lens corrections to "flatten" the image, doesn't that effectively remove the "real" corners? It would be interesting to also see the photos without any corrections or changes (i.e., straight out of the camera) for comparison. Thanks! - brett
  10. I've taken my rebreather in a Pelican case on probably 10+ international trips all over the globe and I have never had an issue. I'm boarding tonight with a Pelican case for my rebreather and one for my camera gear and both of them will be checked. Can it happen? Probably. But, I think the odds are very low. - brett
  11. I also stayed at the Liberty Dive Resort (maybe 6-7 years ago) and enjoyed it. Very convenient. - brett
  12. Making 3D models from 2D pictures: https://wreckedinmyrevo.com/category/photogrammetry/ Regards, - brett
  13. Just FYI on this thread in general, if photogrammetry is in your future, you are going to need a ton more horsepower, memory and a good GPU (if you don't want to wait days to build a model). I've got a iMac Pro (2017) with an 8-core 3.2 GHz Intel Xeon W, 32G of memory, and a Radeon Pro Vega 56 with 8GB of memory. Believe it or not, when build a model with a large number of photos (> 1000), I really wish I had more horsepower... For general photography, it is overkill. - brett
  14. Thanks for the detailed response. As you said on the other thread, traveling with a 230mm dome is problematic (especially given all the other gear I bring for deep rebreather dives in cold water). Do you have any thoughts on performance with a 16-35 with the S&S correction lens and a 180mm dome? I following the thread on 180mm vs 230 but I don't think that specific option has been mentioned? I think a 180mm without the correction lens wouldn't be "good enough" but with the correction lens? I don't really shoot over/under shots so I don't care about that. - brett
  15. I think you might see a bit sharper corners with a fisheye at a given f-stop (but not much with a 140mm dome). I personally don't like the fisheye effect on wrecks. I was in Palau a couple weeks ago and took a picture similar to the above with the WWL-1B which also has some barrel distortion but not as much as the fisheye. You can see the difference. It isn't the exact same picture, but pretty close.This is without any lens corrections in LR. To be honest, I would prefer a rectilinear even more like the 16-35 but I just don't want to travel with a 230mm dome. Again, it is really personal preference on the fisheye with wrecks.
  16. Perfect, thanks Phil. It seems like, at least for my specific purpose (travel & wrecks), the WWL-1B with the 28-60 is the optimal solution. Regards, - brett
  17. Thanks, Chris. Definitely more to ponder & research. For now, I'm pretty happy with the WWL-1B for what I use it for, but I'm always open to new ways of doing things and optimizing. - brett
  18. Thanks, Chris. Yes, currently, I don't really like the fisheye look for wrecks. As mentioned in my response to Jim, I might try it in the future to have something else to work with. Especially if I start taking trips that are not wreck-specific. I have friends who shoot the 16-35 with a large dome and I did definitely consider that but the 230mm dome seems like such a hard piece of equipment to travel with to really remote locations. I am thinking about it when diving locally. The big question is: would the 16-35 with and without the correction lens and a 230mm dome would be any sharper in the corners than the WWL-1B at a given aperture? If so, then there is a potential tradeoff and possibly a reason to go that route (even if for local dives and maybe try to find a system to take it on a trip). I'm just not sure if it is. Any thoughts or do you know if anybody has done a side-by-side test? Regards, - brett
  19. Thanks, Jim. I agree on the WACP but, unfortunately, both the cost and the weight are pretty prohibitive IMO. At some point, I might try the fisheye route just to have a different option when I'm not shooting almost always on wrecks. - brett
  20. The Nauticam cable is listed as compatible with Sea & Sea so I'm pretty sure that the o-rings I ordered with the same dimensions as the ones you mention (4mm ID, 1.5 width) will work and will save a ton of cash. I like Nauticam products but, as other have mentioned, their prices have just gotten really insane -- even for every day stuff like 6 tiny, standard o-rings for $38. - brett
  21. Thanks. My measurements were OD = 6.86 (as you say, 7mm) and a thickness of 1.42mm (likely 1.5mm) and a ID of 4.12mm (likely 4mm). Those all add up if you round them off for my measurement errors. ID + 2 * Thickness = OD (i.e., 4mm + 2 * 1.5mm = 7mm). I'll try ordering a dozen (minimum order) of the 1.5mm x 4mm o-rings to see if those work and will report back after I get them and test. https://www.theoringstore.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=368_12_38&products_id=1810 - brett
  22. Does anybody have the specs for the o-rings used on the Nauticam Fiber Optic cables? The part number is 95437 (https://www.nauticam.com/products/o-ring-for-universal-of-cable-connector-6pcs). I can't stomach paying $38 for quantity 6 o-rings. Thanks, - brett
  23. This is a "fork" from the original topic discussed here: @adamhanlon in that thread said: "So my take on this is that you will get better optical results with a fisheye (like the Canon or Nikon 8-15mm) with an adaptor and a medium sized dome. At 15mm, both these lenses' barrel distortion is not that pronounced and is suitable for using with big animals. WWL is not exactly rectilinear either!" I currently use the WWL-1B on a Sony a7r4 with the 28-60 lens. I agree with Adam that at f8 the corners are a bit soft; however, I don't know of a better solution in my particular situation and I'd be very open to other lens/dome options. Here are is the specific situation that drove my choice of the WWL-1B: 1) Pre-covid and now starting again, I travel to a lot of remote locations (Chuuk, Bikini, etc.) with a LOT of gear (rebreather, bailout regs, spares, dry suit, cave/wreck stuff, etc.) so space (and weight) is at a premium. 2) 90% of my dives are on wrecks. I know that the WWL-1B isn't exactly rectilinear but it is closer to that than a true fisheye. 3) Related to the above, many of my photos on the outside of wrecks have blue water in at least two corners so corner sharpness isn't critical. However, plenty of pictures are inside the wrecks where sharper corners would be nice. I might even be willing to "sacrifice" the straight lines of a rectilinear lens (or something close to that like a WWL-1B) if I could get a "compact" fisheye solution that improved corner sharpness. I think one of the key questions here is "what is a medium sized dome" as @adamhanlon mentions in the quote above? One last note: another benefit of the 28-60 and WWL-1B combo is that I can bring one lens and one wet-lens and get a pretty wide range of shooting options. For example, I just got back from Palau and I did some wreck, cave, and reef dives all on the same trip (this is a bit unusual for me). During some dives, I would remove the WWL-1B wet-lens and just use the 28-60 behind the flat port. I'm very open to ideas on how to get better corners, but right now in my particular situation, I don't know that one exists? Regards, - brett
×
×
  • Create New...