Jump to content
Interceptor121

Shark and Yolanda Red Filter and Ambient Light Filter test clip - Graded

Recommended Posts

Color is really good. So you were using a color filter and auto white balance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Color is really good. So you were using a color filter and auto white balance?

I used the keldan -2 filter for the wwl-1 and white balanced in water on a white or gray card. Then applied automatic color correction in fcpx for the shots were it worked i kept it when it didn’t i rolled back

Then i used rgb parade to correct oversaturated reds when they existed

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, do you mean Keldan Spectrum Filter SF-2? Did it affect the low-light perfomance much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, do you mean Keldan Spectrum Filter SF-2? Did it affect the low-light perfomance much?

The filter works down to 15 meters and peaks between 6-12 in this interval I had no issues my ISO is capped at 800

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think you could get the same results without filters or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Do you think you could get the same results without filters or no?

Categorically not. The cameras white balance for the GH5 and most cameras tops at 9900K and frequently my raw files exceed 15K so a filter is a must

Would say custom white balance probably maxes out around 4 meters then cri drops

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by Interceptor121

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Categorically not. The cameras white balance for the GH5 and most cameras tops at 9900K and frequently my raw files exceed 15K so a filter is a must

Would say custom white balance probably maxes out around 4 meters then cri drops

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not really, look at dreilfish videos. Filters help? Yes under the right conditions. More trouble than what you get in the end? IMHO yes. Modern 10 bit 4-2-2 files give the flexibility to bring the footage where you want, when it is well captured and in shallow water (max 9 to 12 m depending on the sun position, water clarity, water color etc) without filters. Deeper its just you, your camera and your lights :))))

I think this red camera, blue light filter is the new underwater video, photo hype. Something similar to Luts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, look at dreilfish videos. Filters help? Yes under the right conditions. More trouble than what you get in the end? IMHO yes. Modern 10 bit 4-2-2 files give the flexibility to bring the footage where you want, when it is well captured and in shallow water (max 9 to 12 m depending on the sun position, water clarity, water color etc) without filters. Deeper its just you, your camera and your lights :))))

I think this red camera, blue light filter is the new underwater video, photo hype. Something similar to Luts.

Dreifish has 72000 lumens of light and looking deep in the frame the colors are missing which is the point of filters

 

Regarding hype sorry but I think you don’t really understand what you are talking about this is nothing new filters have been around a while

And I have said it pretty clear what is the sweet spot nor I pretend to use filters deeper than when they work

You asked if I could obtain the same colors without the filters and the answer is no otherwise I would have done it and I understand a thing or two on colours more than the average person

Regarding the 10 bit that is actually the real hype together with raw. Even with raw when the frame colors are unbalanced the results are worse otherwise why even Mustard et co shoot with filters at time?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dreifish has 72000 lumens of light and looking deep in the frame the colors are missing which is the point of filters

 

Regarding hype sorry but I think you don’t really understand what you are talking about this is nothing new filters have been around a while

And I have said it pretty clear what is the sweet spot nor I pretend to use filters deeper than when they work

You asked if I could obtain the same colors without the filters and the answer is no otherwise I would have done it and I understand a thing or two on colours more than the average person

Regarding the 10 bit that is actually the real hype together with raw. Even with raw when the frame colors are unbalanced the results are worse otherwise why even Mustard et co shoot with filters at time?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

First of all please don't get offended and "aggressive" we all do our hobby here, right?

Sorry watching it through you tube on a 5K imac screen i don't see anything that cant be achieved without filters if you know your way around it. I can see some pretty bad color at the center of the frame from 0.30 to 0.37

Filters are not new that is for sure. The combination of camera filter combined with blue filters on the light is "new".

Then let's forget 10bit, 12 bit, 14bit files and raw and lets go back to 8bit low bitrate files and filters.... problem solved... I don't know why Mustard and co does it I know why the cinematographers of series like Blue Planet don't do it.

Anyway hope we somehow meet in a trip someday and talk about it over beers. Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all please don't get offended and "aggressive" we all do our hobby here, right?

Sorry watching it through you tube on a 5K imac screen i don't see anything that cant be achieved without filters if you know your way around it. I can see some pretty bad color at the center of the frame from 0.30 to 0.37

Filters are not new that is for sure. The combination of camera filter combined with blue filters on the light is "new".

Then let's forget 10bit, 12 bit, 14bit files and raw and lets go back to 8bit low bitrate files and filters.... problem solved... I don't know why Mustard and co does it I know why the cinematographers of series like Blue Planet don't do it.

Anyway hope we somehow meet in a trip someday and talk about it over beers. Cheers

I don’t like to be associated with any hype the 0:30-0:37 is not corrected it was deeper than the working depth of the filter and the water was murky still decided to take the shot

I don’t know what equipment blue planet have certainly better than mine what I was trying to demonstrate here is that with limited cost you can get good results. I am not good at grading probably more can be done still I think this outcome is comparable with some ‘pro’ work that I see around at a lower cost which is the point I am trying to make

Re beer sure. Am thinking of actually organising a few experimental trips with sponsorship from few sources will keep you posted

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t like to be associated with any hype the 0:30-0:37 is not corrected it was deeper than the working depth of the filter and the water was murky still decided to take the shot

I don’t know what equipment blue planet have certainly better than mine what I was trying to demonstrate here is that with limited cost you can get good results. I am not good at grading probably more can be done still I think this outcome is comparable with some ‘pro’ work that I see around at a lower cost which is the point I am trying to make

Re beer sure. Am thinking of actually organising a few experimental trips with sponsorship from few sources will keep you posted

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed and my mistake for using the word "hype". I should have used the word "trend". Apologies English are not my native language.

Agreed we are all after the same end result. What I am trying to say is that whatever benefit you get from the filters is lost if you think about their overall cost, overall limitations and the added complication of putting them on and off. Now if you know that you will spend the dive at a specific location, a specific time, at specific depth etc etc etc then yes. But how many dives like that is the general diving/filming population does?

.30 to .37 is strange, its blue around the fishes and green in the area the fishes are. Cant understand it especially since it is not corrected.

Anyway looking forward to the trip and the beers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

.30 to .37 is strange, its blue around the fishes and green in the area the fishes are. Cant understand it especially since it is not corrected.

Anyway looking forward to the trip and the beers.

 

it is not white balanced but it is corrected in the color board. The green is the mass of fish behind it combined with murky water on that day

 

If you look at the other clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IvC1maFpE8&t=30s you see how it was if it makes sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@lion2fish point about 10 bit and raw hype

The mft sensors can barely resolve full 24 bits (8 bitsx3) underwater due to colour loss you probably have a lower starting point anyway

So my take is that once you compress intra frame because billions or colours are not there the efficiency is quite high. The fact that the avc-i can take a lot of beating is due to the bitrate being quite high considering you dont actually have 10 bit colours and not to the 10 bit codec

Far more important is the 422 instead of 420 so for me 422 8 bit and 422 10 bit if you had them wont make any difference underwater except 422 8 bits does not exist

Talking about RAW for still pictures once I take a shot with the filter and it is exposed correctly at best I use clarity as the colours are already super vibrant and the contrast is very high.

When I take the same image without filter with custom white balance i get leas contrast and I need to work on the hue resulting in less pleasant colour

Having done extensive test with still images my conclusion is that for the depth range where the filter works I get better colours and saturation and contrast. Once I approach the 12-15 meters mark depending on conditions it becomes preferable with my GH5 to use lights that’s why the removable filter on the WWL-1 is so worthwhile

For the ambient filters on the lights I have my own solution with a compensation depth of 9 meters (not 6 or 12 like keldan). When am at 15 meters the light starts to be warmer and I really only need to get rid of the filter around 18 meters

My custom solution not so fancy is removable also on the lights

In a few months I am going to stress the concept over repeated dives down to 18 meters

A key consideration is noise you can’t trade noise with colours as usually when the ISO goes up the camera only resolves 6-7 bits so once I hit ISO 800 and am underexposed the filter goes out of the equation

Stills or video the tools to grade are there but getting the shot right in camera is key to both and filters in certain conditions improve the situation

 

Dissertation end! Lol

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the need for red filters on the GH5 for ambient light CWB work:

  1. I'm a firm believer that ambient-light CWB only produces 'natural' results down to about 10-12m. Below that, the ambient light color spectrum is just too distorted, an no amount of global filtration or custom white balancing can make it appear natural. Plus, with the GH5, doing a CWB with a red filter below 12m often oversaturates the red channel and you end up with purple water you need to correct later.
  2. Down to about 10m, you can set an adequate CWB on the GH5 without a filter. Will you get better results with a red-filter + CWB combination? Not from 0-6m. If you're only shooting ambient light + CWB down to 6m, you don't need to bother with red filters. From 6-12m, you get slightly better results with the red filter since the GH5's CWB doesn't seem to let you go above 10000k/+150 magenta. But it's a subtle difference, not a night-and-day one, and most obvious at the deeper end of the range (where colors start to look a bit desaturated and odd anyway). You probably could compensate for any difference with color correction in post.
  3. Keldan makes a red filter that fits in between the flat port and WWL-1 if you use the combination, meaning it can be relatively easily removed or added during the dive. I was experimenting with it on my trips to Tubbataha in June (video will come soon). Unfortunately, in Tubbataha the reef top is usually in the 9-15m deep range, so it's borderline for ambient light shots. But I got some decent results with the red filter and CWB (doing the CWB no deeper than 12m). I wish I had done systematic tests showing what CWB vs. red filter + CWB looks like at 3m, 6m, 9m, 12m and 15m to settle the red filter question once and for all, but I didn't. It'll have to wait till my Red Sea trip in late October I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the need for red filters on the GH5 for ambient light CWB work:

  • I'm a firm believer that ambient-light CWB only produces 'natural' results down to about 10-12m. Below that, the ambient light color spectrum is just too distorted, an no amount of global filtration or custom white balancing can make it appear natural. Plus, with the GH5, doing a CWB with a red filter below 12m often oversaturates the red channel and you end up with purple water you need to correct later.
  • Down to about 10m, you can set an adequate CWB on the GH5 without a filter. Will you get better results with a red-filter + CWB combination? Not from 0-6m. If you're only shooting ambient light + CWB down to 6m, you don't need to bother with red filters. From 6-12m, you get slightly better results with the red filter since the GH5's CWB doesn't seem to let you go above 10000k/+150 magenta. But it's a subtle difference, not a night-and-day one, and most obvious at the deeper end of the range (where colors start to look a bit desaturated and odd anyway). You probably could compensate for any difference with color correction in post.
  • Keldan makes a red filter that fits in between the flat port and WWL-1 if you use the combination, meaning it can be relatively easily removed or added during the dive. I was experimenting with it on my trips to Tubbataha in June (video will come soon). Unfortunately, in Tubbataha the reef top is usually in the 9-15m deep range, so it's borderline for ambient light shots. But I got some decent results with the red filter and CWB (doing the CWB no deeper than 12m). I wish I had done systematic tests showing what CWB vs. red filter + CWB looks like at 3m, 6m, 9m, 12m and 15m to settle the red filter question once and for all, but I didn't. It'll have to wait till my Red Sea trip in late October I guess.

I have done the test in Egypt

 

3m no difference

6-9-12 better with filter

15 depends on conditions and filter

 

As generally there is no issue keeping the filter even at the surface at least the wwl-1 and actually taking two stops off for me helps there is no need to overcomplicate matters in bright bluewater

 

Greenwater combined with dark environment it is questionable the value of the filter if noise increases too much am planning some tests in UK

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

Regarding the need for red filters on the GH5 for ambient light CWB work:

  1. I'm a firm believer that ambient-light CWB only produces 'natural' results down to about 10-12m. Below that, the ambient light color spectrum is just too distorted, an no amount of global filtration or custom white balancing can make it appear natural. Plus, with the GH5, doing a CWB with a red filter below 12m often oversaturates the red channel and you end up with purple water you need to correct later.
  2. Down to about 10m, you can set an adequate CWB on the GH5 without a filter. Will you get better results with a red-filter + CWB combination? Not from 0-6m. If you're only shooting ambient light + CWB down to 6m, you don't need to bother with red filters. From 6-12m, you get slightly better results with the red filter since the GH5's CWB doesn't seem to let you go above 10000k/+150 magenta. But it's a subtle difference, not a night-and-day one, and most obvious at the deeper end of the range (where colors start to look a bit desaturated and odd anyway). You probably could compensate for any difference with color correction in post.
  3. Keldan makes a red filter that fits in between the flat port and WWL-1 if you use the combination, meaning it can be relatively easily removed or added during the dive. I was experimenting with it on my trips to Tubbataha in June (video will come soon). Unfortunately, in Tubbataha the reef top is usually in the 9-15m deep range, so it's borderline for ambient light shots. But I got some decent results with the red filter and CWB (doing the CWB no deeper than 12m). I wish I had done systematic tests showing what CWB vs. red filter + CWB looks like at 3m, 6m, 9m, 12m and 15m to settle the red filter question once and for all, but I didn't. It'll have to wait till my Red Sea trip in late October I guess.

 

Could not agree more. So in my mind the way i interpret it is: too much trouble for questionable or marginal better results. Now if you add on the light filters then its even more trouble. But that is me, others have their opinion.

Edited by Lionfi2s
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could not agree more. So in my mind the way i interpret it is: too much trouble for questionable or marginal better results. Now if you add on the light filters then its even more trouble. But that is me, others have their opinion.

1. You don’t know until you try

2. In the first 12 meters most time you have too much light so taking two stops off means you shoot at the best aperture for your lens instead of going to values that generate diffraction

 

Ultimately the footage looks better and judging from the response I have is noticeable not subtle

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could not agree more. So in my mind the way i interpret it is: too much trouble for questionable or marginal better results. Now if you add on the light filters then its even more trouble. But that is me, others have their opinion.

The simpler the better...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Everybody is a manager after the football match is over

It is a good idea to comment on what works with the benefit of some hands on experience

If I recall correctly some of those writing on this thread have been in touch to ask what was required to try the technique

At this point as the rest of the world seems to know best I will keep the details to myself and I will be looking forward to some of your work in anticipation

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by Interceptor121

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody is a manager after the football match is over

It is a good idea to comment on what works with the benefit of some hands on experience

If I recall correctly some of those writing on this thread have been in touch to ask what was required to try the technique

At this point as the rest of the world seems to know best I will keep the details to myself and I will be looking forward to some of your work in anticipation

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

please dont do that I am interested in the details, and like to experiment like this. I dont get to dive much so having details and plans on what to try ahead of dives makes the most of my experiments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

please dont do that I am interested in the details, and like to experiment like this. I dont get to dive much so having details and plans on what to try ahead of dives makes the most of my experiments.

The way to see it if you want to do some tests is that filters on the lens give you around 4 meters benefit on custom white balance.

Typically custom white balance works to max 10-11 meters before it maxes out. Some cameras like Olympus can do custom white balance to 14K in some models.

Now there are plenty of schooling fish you can’t illuminate with lights and you need to make do with ambient light that are between 10 and 15 meters. This is basically the filter hot spot.

In bright scenes 12 meters is also not dark enough to make your lights work well.

So the filter helps to resolve that 10-15 meters area ambient light scene that cwb can’t cover and lights are not suited to.

If your scene is in the range 0-10 meters the benefit of the filter especially for video on MFT is to avoid apertures beyond f/11 where the lens perform poorly so as by product you also get better sharpness.

It really depends on what you are shooting and where but it is nice to have options.

For what concerns the ambient light filters this is a more complex topic because you use the lights just for highlights and detail not as main source same goes for strobes but you have much more power there

So for experiment purposes you need to be able to understand what shots work with filters and which not and then in case of closer scenes or caves you ca try the ambient light

If you start everything altogether you may end up with too much of a challenge

If your primary use is still images wrecks around 12-15m are the perfect starting point or large school of fish from the distance

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way to see it if you want to do some tests is that filters on the lens give you around 4 meters benefit on custom white balance.

Typically custom white balance works to max 10-11 meters before it maxes out. Some cameras like Olympus can do custom white balance to 14K in some models.

Now there are plenty of schooling fish you can’t illuminate with lights and you need to make do with ambient light that are between 10 and 15 meters. This is basically the filter hot spot.

In bright scenes 12 meters is also not dark enough to make your lights work well.

So the filter helps to resolve that 10-15 meters area ambient light scene that cwb can’t cover and lights are not suited to.

If your scene is in the range 0-10 meters the benefit of the filter especially for video on MFT is to avoid apertures beyond f/11 where the lens perform poorly so as by product you also get better sharpness.

It really depends on what you are shooting and where but it is nice to have options.

For what concerns the ambient light filters this is a more complex topic because you use the lights just for highlights and detail not as main source same goes for strobes but you have much more power there

So for experiment purposes you need to be able to understand what shots work with filters and which not and then in case of closer scenes or caves you ca try the ambient light

If you start everything altogether you may end up with too much of a challenge

If your primary use is still images wrecks around 12-15m are the perfect starting point or large school of fish from the distance

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you. I mostly dive in the 10-15m so this is the sweet spot so this method could work well for me. Can you share some details on how you combine the filters in the rosco kit to get your ambient blue? I have an ikelite 6441 series filter I use on my WA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I recall the ikelite is just a warming filter very similar to a CT Orange full and therefore it won't work properly with any ambient filter on the lights

What set up have you got? Maybe better to start your own thread or write a message on my blog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sponsors

Advertisements



×
×
  • Create New...