Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Interceptor121 last won the day on February 27

Interceptor121 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

478 Excellent


About Interceptor121

  • Rank
    Blue Whale

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Woburn Sands, UK

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
  • Camera Model & Brand
    Panasonic GH5
  • Camera Housing
    Nauticam NA-GH5
  • Strobe/Lighting Model & Brand
    2x Sea and Sea YS-D2, 2x Inon Z240
  • Accessories
    Too many

Recent Profile Visitors

61122 profile views
  1. Canon EF flange distance 44mm. MFT 19.25. Difference 24.75. Additional extension needed 24.75-19.25=5.50mm The speedboster is shorter so needs only 30mm extension
  2. 1. I do not recommend the speedboster. You don't need an f/2.8 lens and the field of view is reduced 2. The extension required for flange adapter is 35mm does not matter who makes it. The adapter should not be the same depth of the speedboster or it would crop
  3. Apologies I was talking about the full shebang with RAW Details which is what bring the most benefit, also suggesting their own RAW processing is not that good if there are details that can be revealed? If you base your comparison on the ACR RAW processing am sure you will see benefits However when I say it does not work that well I am comparing with a TIFF produced by DxO that is way sharper than any image lightroom can produce. So the path DxO or RawTherapee or other RAW to TIFF and then a sharpener works better for me than processing a RAW in Adobe products and this feature is not really making me change the workflow especially once I factor in all the issues with color rendering and exposure that adobe introduces when it normalises a camera
  4. Adobe ACR does not do a particularly good job in terms of image sharpness compared to other raw converters The engine has been updated a lot since you reprocessed your shots from 10 years ago and the improvement are likely to be connected to the new processing logic not so much to super resolution There are plenty of examples out there where super resolution does not provide any benefit compared to other software and today there are many solutions for scaling including Topaz products for example or a combination of a better RAW processor with photoshop enhance details In addition super resolution only works on RAW not on TIFF files which is another limitation
  5. I just recently sold some (land) prints and I tried to use this feature it was disappointing. I got better results with preserve details 2.0 This was a smaller upscale from 5184 to 6000 and yet the new feature did not do that well and added quite a few artefacts. In general however you really don't need more than 20-24 megapixels as you can print fine at 200 DPI and printing lab upscaling is very impressive I print 30" wide and most people do not have room for larger frames in their houses unless they are the kind of people that would not typically buy a wildlife image There are conflicting reports on super resolution but the general message of this video aka you are good with a 20-24 megapixel camera remains valid
  6. Yours looks like traditional super contrasty Sony footage with a lot of clipping that I have learnt not to like The footage of the lady with desaturated look works much better for my liking
  7. Even more interesting. If you force youtube to h264 there are no glitches conclusion their vp9 codec has some playback problems of some description!
  8. YouTube is introducing around 1 glitch per day. The clip was uploaded 10 days ago and checked no issues. On day 1 was fine too. On day 2 had 1 glitch and on day 3 it has 2 glitches very interesting trend. I wrote them about it not sure I will get a reply. Even more interesting if I download the video or I scrub it in the editor there are no issues, perhaps they have a playback problem? No voiceover is intentional I didn’t want to do a documentary just to relive my walks I used quite a few lenses the bulk is with 50-200 sometimes with teleconverter some of the closer shots 200mm + 2 TC All on monopod I only used tripods for some of the landscape shots Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  9. Some people have gone the bathtub route but I decided to expand my horizons to land wildlife photography. It has been a journey and although the challenges of long lens work are not exactly the same stability and field work is fundamental like it is underwater a bit like buoyancy. Hopefully makes for a pleasant and relaxing watch while we wait for things to pick up again Stay safe
  10. Why would you want to have an anamorphic lens underwater? Anamorphic lenses give specific look and flares that underwater are generally not desired (we are all fighting flare) as it reduces contrast Water has already a dampening and contrast reducing effect on the image it does not really need any help? I am a bit confused by the purpose of this experiment.
  11. To my knowledge this metadata can only read by catalyst the Sony provided application but may be wrong Obviously it crops... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  12. https://interceptor121.com/2014/03/15/floats-and-float-arms/ I have tables for all the arms and set ups combined. You Z330 with dome may be neutral so check them individually
  13. I am not sure about the stabilisation issue. I generally do not stabilise my videos and the A7S has IBIS so am not clear what is going on. Someone said the camera captures gyroscope information if it does that on a log base this would be fairly easy to stabilise? Not sure if this lovely lady has the technical background to answer the kind of questions you or I might have
  14. Lots of slow motion and a wide lens are not exactly the proof of the pudding
  15. The dome is too small for wide lenses.It is really for maximum 12mm. You need the 7" for wider lenses however with this lens being so small it would most likely vignette It would be better to try a shorter port like the 4.33 dome
  • Create New...