Jump to content

String

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    88

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by String

  1. Posted

    I've used both.

    Started with a 10-22 then moved to the 10-17.

    As above the FOV is much better with the 10-17 and its a useful zoom range.  Very nice close focus too.

    The 10-22 as well i found no matter what size dome or aperture i used the corners were always soft.  Much more so than the Tokina.

    The only thing the 10-22 "wins" at is it displays less chromatic aberration but this is something easily addressed with a single click in post so i dont class it as a bonus.

    Since getting the 10-17 i never went back to the 10-22.  For me its a far superior lens.  The only issue i can think of is maybe if you're doing things with lots of straight lines or in a pool where the curvature of the 10-17 is noticeable and distracting.

     

  4. Posted

    Im in the process of switching from Premiere to Resolve so in a steep learning curve currently.

    One likely basic problem i cant solve is the thumbnail or filmstrip previews in the timeline (Edit or cut page) all display without my colour correcting and grading showing.

    The timeline viewer itself shows the corrected video and the images in the colour page all look fine.

    Reason im asking this is im putting together u/w videos which obviously pre correction all look the same (well the ambient shots) as in green/blue and faded so makes it really hard to get an overview of the actual edit structure by looking at them.

    So is there any way to get the filmstrip thumbnails to update with the current colour corrections?  Ive tried things like "update all thumbnails", manually caching and so on but nothing seems to change it.

     

    2118389573_Screenshot2023-01-17005317.thumb.png.6fcb0e0854b5fa0c402a1f92f2771ac9.png

    Am i missing something glaringly obvious here?  Its Resolve v18 fwiw.

  6. Posted

    Just curious if anyone has ever rebuilt an Ikelite DS160/161 battery pack?

    Both of mine are now taking an age to recycle and charge and will stop completely soon.

    Im not too keen on paying £200 each for new packs so wondering if anyone has managed to rebuilt their own just using cells bought elsewhere?

    These are the NiMH version not the Li-Ions.

    I can see the screws to get into them but wondered if anyone has successfully done this and if so, was it hard and what cells were needed?

     

  7. Posted · Edited by String

    4 dives a day on a liveaboard for work where even the fresh water isnt that "fresh" for 7 months of the year so it get s a *lot* of use.

    Camera passed to/from the boat and generally dumped by a busy boat crew before and after dives as they try to handle everything so things get banged.

    Main problems ive found are the dissimilar metals cause the electrical bulkhead plug to rapidly fuse to the socket even with regular maintenance.  I know at least 3 people all have had this issue with Ikelite cables welding themselves onto the socket and only being removable with a saw.

    That last one that did it to me was after 3 days (cancelled boat, camera left on boat in a rush).

    Ive also had 2 hotshoe wires break due to the angle they sit and strain/bend inside the house.  In addition the connector block between the hot shoe wires and sockets has a tendency of slipping apart if the housing is banged on entry etc at times.  Its a really flimsy design.

    Had 1 set of wires break somewhere inside the glued on connector that feeds the socket as well.

    Sync cords themselves are roughly 11 years old.  One has now broken but the other way working but is glued completely to the bulkhead socket.  It cant be removed without cutting.

    I'd rather get to a stage where the fibre cable is the only real point of failure and replacing that wont involve saws or complete strobe failure on dives (ie fixable on a dive boat without a soldering iron).

  9. Posted

    Just after come confirmation here.

    Ive got 2 x DS160 Ikelite strobes on a nauticam housing.

    They're currently electrically triggered via a bulkhead connector but i really want to move away from this.

    After 3 broken hotshoe connectors, 1 snapped wiring in the socket itself and 2 x sync cables welded onto the bulkhead (dissimilar metals...) ive decided its time to go optical.

    I know i need 2 of these ( https://www.ikelite.com/products/fiber-optic-converter-for-ds-strobes-3rd-gen ) but what cord am i going to need to connect to those and into the Nauticam housing on the other end of this (ive never used optical in my life).

    From what i can see there are different standards for connectors.

    The two listed on the ikelite for nauticam ( # 26212  and 26211) appear discontinued.

    Will 2 of these do the job?  ( https://www.nauticam.co.uk/universal-fiber-optic-cable/ )

    In short, is there anything else i need to convert this setup to optical triggering?

     

  10. Posted

    From personal experience id say even a low lumen constant light has MUCH more of an effect on marine life than a strobe.

    Even something dim like a 3,000 lumen lots of marine life actively distances itself from you or turns away.  10,000+ is significantly worse.

    With a strobe, although its much more powerful its over very quickly.  I suspect some animals simply dont even see the flash - theres no reaction at all (lionfish, bannerfish, barracuda etc).  Some clearly DO see it and blink (turtles octopus, cuttlefish etc) but do not turn away or try to leave the area.

    I guess its like a person, take a photo of me with a camera flash its unlikely to annoy me.  But shine a really bright light constantly in my face and im far more likely to get annoyed or turn away.

  12. Posted

    Actually should clarify i mean for non uw use.  Adapted lenses generally all seem to suffer in terms of AF speed and accuracy the longer the focal length.

    On all the ones ive tried (sony and canon systems) at 400m the AF performance is fairly dire compared to native without an adaptor.

    I know its not an issue underwater but like i said, for me i ideally need one system to cover both.

  14. Posted

    On 4/10/2020 at 3:01 PM, Interceptor121 said:

    The Canon 90D is a very interesting camera in fact am not sure if a housing will be developed it is a bit different to the 80D so not sure it will fit old housing.

    DSRL will disappear is just a matter of time and OVF will no longer exist. How long will it take is unclear. As a video shooter having used OVF and EVF I prefer EVF as I can predict how the image will come out (if I do not use strobes) that together with all the exposure and focus aids makes checking your images in the LCD less of a necessity. I always thought there was no point looking what my could see and then realising the camera could not cope with it so I was never a fan of OVF and their little dots

    The 90D has also an hybrid viewfinder or am I mistaken?

    Its totally different from the 80D sadly (joystick etc).  I bought it in the hope that a housing would be made.  I know Ikelite and some have them but i dont want to go there.  I may have made an expensive gamble.

    Ultimately my underwater setup currently is a dated 70D so no 4k video and other things so in bad need of an upgrade but as of yet there isnt really anything on the market i can use for underwater AND surface sensibly.

    The 90D hybrid isnt really that - it superimposes a lot of data but the view itself is still optical.  You need liveview for video and other features.  Id *love* a camera i could take video by looking through the viewfinder which mirrorless does as holding a DSLR steady and having to look at the back LCD screen is difficult.

    I still cant accept the lag in an EVF for sport/wildlife shooting on land.  As i said, i havent tried an A9 or A7m4 but the others i have tried still to me had distracting and noticeable latency.

  15. Posted · Edited by String

    12 hours ago, Captain Fathom said:

    My mask protects you, your mask protects me. They are trying to conserve the N95 masks and similar for medical use and first responders since they are still in short supply. 

     

    You will get your peer reviewed, factually proven and supported, double blind, control groups studies about a year from now, about the time we get a vaccine. At some point in the interim, those of us who are not in one of the vulnerable groups, using the recommended precautions, are going to have to OO's up and get about our lives.

    Quote

    The intended purpose of the home fabricated masks being recommended by the CDC is not to prevent the wearer from inhaling virus particles but instead to knock down/trap droplets/material being exhaled by the wearer.

    This is the problem, as they themselves admitted, its not based on any evidence the masks actually do that at all (and no research into harmful unexpected results such as potentially increased risk of infection due to incorrect use and adhering).

    The CDC is a massive outlier here, i dont know another major body recommending masks (nor making recommendations that aren't based on any science what-so-ever).  Its very odd for them to do such a thing and does hint a bit of desperation.

    In short, there is no data to suggest "my mask protects you" and also no data showing "my mask doesn't make me more prone to disease than no mask".  Both of which are pretty important.

     

    ...and getting back to the original point.  The website that is ultimately "fake news".  Ultimately it makes claims that are demonstrably untrue, selectively edits the data to try to fit its conclusion and offers no scientific backing.

    Its worth than nothing.  Its possible to have sensible debate of the actual science but that website is nothing of the sort.  Its a screaming hysteria site with absolutely no basis in science or fact.  Its misleading and potentially dangerous.

    • Like 1

  16. Posted

    I actually bought a 90D and its a good little camera.  Not high end for sure but a big upgrade over my 70D (I just wish there was a nauticam housing....).

    Maybe im different but i do above and below water photography and for ease of accessories, travel weight, spares and so on really want the same gear to use in both for some commonality.

    On the surface at least, mirrorless AF still lags behind a dedicated sensor.  There's also the issue that most (all?) mount adaptors tend to drastically affect the AF speed and accuracy the more you get into longer focal lengths.  So for me at least, sport and wildlife wise where most of it is through L glass at longer lengths, mirrorless simply isnt going to be useful for me yet.

    I like APS-C for the above (combined with the resolution of the 90D) for the reach it gives me.

    Admittedly i haven't tried an A9 or A74 but i absolutely hate the EVF for tracking sport or wildlife.  The A72 was unusable completely, the A73 still feels laggy to me and isn't a pleasant usage experience.  Again i can see an upside to EVF but also downsides.  Underwater probably more pros than cons, surface not so much.

    If i was doing underwater *only* they im fairly sure id go full frame mirrorless but as i need a setup to both, that isnt a useful option for me currently.  At least not yet.

    My setup is a compromise, not absolutely perfect for underwater but good enough.  The other way around would significantly hamper my above-water ability.

     

  17. Posted

    8 hours ago, PhotoJunkie said:

    FYI,  please check www.cdc.gov

     

    Just sayin’

     

    ...which actually admits there is no evidence or studies to the efficacy of masks at all.  They're honest enough about it.  (Its surprising to see a recommendation based on no peer reviewed evidence into (i) bemefit and (ii) potentially harmful unexpected effects from a major world body though.  This puts them massively out of step with just about everywhere else).

    CDC is basically saying "We know asymptomatic carriers are everywhere due to new research" (this much is true) but then says wear a cloth mask where no studies at all have been done to see if they have any positive effects or if so outweigh the actual negative effects.

     

  18. Posted

    On 4/3/2020 at 10:02 PM, PhotoJunkie said:

    I am not going to get into an argument about PPE, but I came across this and want to share.

    masks4all.co

    My wife uses a head band when she dives and I thought it would make a good home-made mask.  The brand she uses is ‘Buff’.  A folded paper towel between the layers, wash when you get back home after grocery shopping.

    We can’t get N95 masks, but if you listen to what is on this site, we can reduce the spread.

    Brant Emery

    I would caution that nothing on that site seems to list ANY scientific evidence at all yet claims "scientific evidence".  Alarm bells should be flashing.

    I uses a chart claiming "MASK USE!!" for some countries that have controlled this while ignoring (i) they embarked on mass testing, rapid tracing and isolation and (ii) some of the countries there actually had big fines FOR wearing a mask in public without being sick.

    Its misleading at best, deliberately deceiving would be another term....

    When you dig around the mainstream media stuff it cites, it leads to NO peer reviewed articles on it.

    It's also worth noting in its change of policy the CDC itself admitted there is no research on mask efficiency.  There are some (unreviewed studies) on distance of droplets travelling but crucially *none* showing the efficacy of masks to reduce or change this. They admit this - its a recommendation based more on a hunch and guess than actual evidence.

    All the research that HAS been done is in a clinical environment.  Thats very different to average people on the street.

    There is evidence that masks, especially cloth masks can INCREASE the risk of infections due to moisture and pathogen trapping, this combined by a non clinical (untrained people touching them, sliding them on and off etc) can transfer infections.

    From the ECDC tehnical report 26/3:-

    There is limited guidance and clinical research to inform on the use of reusable cloth face masks for protection against respiratory viruses. Available evidence shows that they are less protective than surgical masks and may even increase the risk of infection due to moisture, liquid diffusion and retention of the virus. Penetration of particles through cloth is reported to be high. In one study, 40–90% of particles penetrated the mask. In a cluster randomised controlled trial, cases of influenza-like illness and laboratory-confirmed viral illness were significantly higher among healthcare workers using cloth masks compared to the ones using surgical masks [1,2]. Altogether, common fabric cloth masks are not considered protective against respiratory viruses and their use should not be encouraged.

    NCBI paper in 2015 found:

    n a randomized trial in Vietnam, healthcare workers who wore cloth masks acquired more respiratory infections and influenza-like illnesses than their colleagues who wore surgical masks. Lab tests showed that 97 percent of particles got through the cloth masks, compared to 44 percent with surgical masks.

     

    There are 20+ references off this and a further 40 from the ECDC on about this.  Actually, peer reviewed data.

    So i'd be VERY cautious of this website as it contains *no* scientific validation, cherry picks outcomes from charts whilst (i) invented things about mask use and (ii) ignoring ACTUAL mitigation factors performed.

     

    A few mistruths from that site:-

    We now know that masks slash transmission of COVID-19.

    There is no data what-so-ever anywhere to suggest we "know" that.

    Modeling suggests if 80% of people wear a mask, we’ll stop the spread of the disease.

    No verified peer review model published out there suggests anything of the sort.

     Countries with mask laws have 100x lower COVID-19 rates than other countries.

    Is demonstrably untrue using the data on their own site!

    I could go on tearing apart each claim but you get the point, in normal times this website would be banned for unaccirate or misleading medical claims and advertising in many countries.

     

    Ultimately if you do decide to wear a cloth mask, be aware that you could easily increase the risk of infections generally so it should be sterilised and washed certainly after each and every use, ideally every time you touch it bare hands.  Otherwise you maybe creating a bigger problem than the one you're trying to solve.

  19. Posted

    Local store isnt really an option where i am in Thailand as there are none.  All would involve multi hour trips to a city and back and even then the chances of them understanding what i need are slim!

    Its a genuine, newly bought Nauticam housing so the parts themselves should all be Nauticam.

    Its the reducer thing i need really as without that i cant screw the handle down.

  20. Posted

    I've got a Nauticam housing for my Canon EOS 70D and in the process of reconfiguring it slightly and have lost some original bits.

    Currently i have a ball mount for a gopro mounted which i want to remove.  The problem is, removing this requires some sort of reducer and screw to complete the housing setup but im unable to find the name (or part numbers) i need.

    IMG_20200126_183831.thumb.jpg.bd9075b57f3c80b734f8855581fcc6c6.jpg

    This is the mounting hole with the  ball removed.

     

    The other side has a reducer of some sort and screw as can be seen here:-

    IMG_20200126_183212.thumb.jpg.fcee7537484ea0078b4b9cb70125dbb3.jpg

    Basically im after the name and/or part numbers of these items (reducer thingy and screw so can order them and remove the unneeded ball mount.

     

  24. Posted · Edited by String

    1 hour ago, Placebo365 said:

    Really enjoyed that String. Nice one. You can never get tired of seeing Mantas hey. Black Rock is a trip Ive wanted to do for years now but I work Ko Lanta, so our high season runs the same as yours and I can never get away. You got some great underside ID shots there too, do you upload them to Manta Matcher? I'm sure these Mantas travel between here (Hin Daeng/Hin Muang) and Black Rock but who knows. Anyway, sounds like an amazing trip. I'll make it there one day!

    Sent from my CLT-L29 using Tapatalk
     

    We go there roughly once a month (OK less this year due to the crazy myanmar visa price and new $1000 per boat fee they've introduced!).

    Myanmar can be highly variable.  Typically 3-5m vis and green, sometimes the Mantas are around Black rock (and the Twins), sometimes not.

    Once a year in roughly February they seem to congregate for a few days in large numbers then vanish (this video was shot over a period of 3 days/12 dives - normally we do 1 day at black rock but customers kept voting to stay so we did).

    As far as IDs go, we had 50 different individual mantas on this particular trip and yes, I submit to Manta Matcher).  Unusually the vis was 15m+ and blue water as opposed to 5m of green as well.

    The following year we only had 1 day of Manta madness there but got 20 different IDs over 4 dives, the next day there they'd all gone.  This time though they were breaching, sometimes as 1s, sometimes as pairs so behaviour was completely different.

    What was interesting is both seasons we didn't have the same manta on more than 1 dive so that hints there's a very large number of them moving through the area.

    A lot of the Manta IDs came back as new but several had been seen at Koh Bon / Similans several years previously.  Also some of the ones we get in the Similans come back as being at Black Rock and further north so they clearly move around a lot over several years.

     

    • Like 2

  25. Posted

    I can see both sides of the coin as im a photographer (or claim to be) and also a guide.

    Personally when ive got my full camera setup in photographer mode i would NOT want to guide me.  No matter how much i try to be a good buddy and good group person i simply cant pull it off.

    As advice above, going when its quiet OR getting a private guide is often the only sensible option.

    Speaking as a guide its a nightmare when you have a group of "normal" divers who want a tour and 1 proper photographer with a camera.  Its impossible to please both.

     

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...