Jump to content

Interceptor121

Member
  • Content Count

    2629
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    89

Interceptor121 last won the day on November 10

Interceptor121 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

330 Excellent

About Interceptor121

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://interceptor121.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Woburn Sands, UK

Additional Info

  • Show Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
  • 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

59699 profile views
  1. Example against a rectilinear object 100% correction 0% correction As you can see without correction the barrel distortion is visible
  2. As I wrote on the diagonal is 130 but horizontally has the same fov of the 7-14 All diagonal fisheye are like that so this is normal but majorities of people dont know For me what matters most is the horizontal axis This article I wrote has the table https://interceptor121.com/2019/05/12/nauticam-wwl-1the-best-wide-angle-lens-for-underwater-video-on-the-gh5-and-other-micro-four-thirds/ The 7-14 rectilinear lens has the same horizontal field of view and is actually wider vertically this is because fisheye like lenses compress the frame with barrel distortion. Now 7-14mm is not a useful focal length for me because perspective distortion is so accentuated that the shots look weird also on land more at close range in water Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  3. Blue green whatever basically not good conditions to shoot without strobes and too deep... Which is the reason why haven’t bothered yet Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  4. She is using raw images so this appears a mix of white balance and dehaze I guess the different shots get the appropriate level of correction you need So this could work when you are at depth where colors are still there but not replace flash anyway Blue scatters light and dehaze removes scatter but water also absorbs light both in terms of color and general intensity Looks very promising for ambient light shots at shallow depth for those that are not that good at post processing Still many shallow pictures once gone through current tool look pretty good and not as different as those results Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  5. The results of the technique do not look that incredible to me? Most of the close shots once white balanced properly they look pretty much like those in the video. Maybe I am missing something but I do not see lightyears between the examples and pictures I already take today once corrected
  6. Rectilinear lens 20 mm and longer in 35 equivalent to avoid the kids look weird Of course you can shoot a fisheye but it looks ugly
  7. The manual focus only works with wet lens that shortens the focal length Without it you will just have blur The GH6 if it comes out next year wont be a game changer Panasonic has committed to 8K by 2022 and the Lumix G already got a significant firmware update suggesting new products are not coming too soon Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  8. If I had to get a single rig for the best still images it will have to be the Nikon D850 While in terms of pure image quality there are other options on the mirrorless full frame camp and the choice of lenses and ports is catching up too on the ergonomics and shooting performance a traditional DSLr is still much stronger and considering how complex is to take pictures underwater this is a deciding factor Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  9. I posted this specific point in the video section because I didn’t want it to become a generic discussion on white balance yes or no for RAW images The video workflow is totally different from stills and even if you white balance you still perform adjustment in the final stage of your edit so clearly having footage that can withstand color manipulation helps however raw video is not mainstream and even if you can get to 50000 K in post if you were too off during capture it looks weird exactly as it does with still images and this is one of the reasons I am advocating the use of filters in ambient light shots and white balance in capture So am aligned with what Adam says in terms of not being too far off whilst in terms of correcting in post it is not an issue because you typically have homogeneous clips that are short in duration and this is just the way it works in video Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  10. Adam I wanted to make the point that lens choice at least for some scenarios is not a limitation but that doesn’t make that the preferred choice! It was just to enrich the discussion... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  11. John we are talking video here not stills so WB is required. I do not know what RAW is inside a camera like BMPCC 4K however I doubt it is uncompressed RAW and therefore white balance will certainly not hurt there either
  12. One of the issues when converting files between Lightroom and Photolab is that the colors are not retained. Apparently Photolab saves all color channel separately in a DNG while Lightroom does not. The conversion only works using TIFF however in this case I needed to process the raw file in photolab first as that is where I can alter the geometry corrections when I then get to lightroom and use DNG the colours go off so I am not able to reproduce anymore the same set up of the image I processed few months ago! For what concerns the image and the geometry correction there is what it seems a crop stronger in lightroom and to a lesser extent in the corrected photolab file, no crop in the uncorrected What I understand is happening here is as follows: 1. DSLR lenses have a profile for correction and you can decide as user if you want to apply it or not. Typically a DSLR wide angle lens of good quality has a distortion of 3.5% so in effect nobody corrects it and lightroom by default does not propose a correction even if a lens profile is available. 2. Mirrorless lenses have a smaller sensor and the error is higher than 5% (5.2% Panasonic 7-14 mm 6.6% Pana 8-18 7.2% Olympus 7-14) the manufacturers run a test on a grid and then put some parameters in the lens. This level of distortion IS visible on land images I will try and post some examples when I get back What lightroom does is to apply the correction parameters in the lens (you cannot disable) and then crop the edges and upscale the image. So even if you have full resolution of your camera the reality that it has lost around 2 Megapixels this is mostly in the corners that look badly The uncorrected image has those 2 megapixels more and if you were shooting a straight line you would see it is bent (i have done it and it looks horrid) underwater it is harder to see even if the lens has 6.6% distortion as in my example The corrected image from DxO looses less pixels than lightroom and still achieves a straight line what is good is that you can set the correction to 100% which is completely corrected or less all the way down to zero where you have all your pixels back depending on having or not straight lines in the image. So if you have them and it is important you correct them, if not you can leave uncorrected and keep the full sensor resolution generally it is not possible to really notice a 5-7% unless there is a straight line in the frame
  13. The metabones adapter Canon EF to Sony has no optical element is just a physical adapter to make sure the flange distance is the same. The person I met on the boat actually posted the pictures here on wetpixel this is the post As the Sony autofocus is great and @benignor says there is no difference using the metabones I can conclude positively that the adapter plays no role in the performance at least of this system it is however true that the Sony has on average autofocus of 0.25 seconds vs 0.08 of a Nikon D850 so clearly there is a gap there but it is the same on land and in water and adapters do not make this worse
  14. I am abroad for work at present so I had no time to update the post I will do that when I get back You can definitely load the LUT if you have a monitor I do not have one at present however the settings for CineLike D are just Noise Sharpness and Saturation -5 nothing particular and CineLike is REC709 compliant the highlight clip is at 100% not at 75% or 90% like VLOG or HLG so I am not sure there would be any benefit. In terms of contrast cinelike D gamma curve is stretched but it is not a difference between night and day like VLOG. Once you get the LUT on the camera profile this is just a baseline for grading the contrast is not affected so you still need to work it to bring it where you want it to be. I use the Pro Quickies and find the Film settings to work quite well in most cases. Using a filter naturally increase saturation so also on that front I tend to use the automatic setting for color in FCPX pro after the LUT is applied and then finally I look at the LUMA and Saturation curves for clipping. I have to say almost never I clip the highlight as I tend to underexpose -2/3 to -1 as recommended by magic filters however this has to be checked now that the GH5 has a highlight priority mode as this may not be necessary anymore When I have the pictures of the white balance card lanyard I will update this post to let you know
×
×
  • Create New...