Polar Pro Red Filter vs UR/PRO Analysis

[Interceptor121]

I have made some measurements compared to UR/PRO

Nobody please have a fit and stay cool and be nice!!!

The post will be online at 00:00 GMT January 13

http://wp.me/p2QoIB-3L

 

[Marty Cerven]

Is it measured with your RX-100 again or did you use a an actual scientific approach this time.

The pics of the polar pro at 40ft in the other post look far too red for me and I have not seen that with any of the other filters I tried with a hero2. Auto white balance never errors on the red side unless very shallow 5m/15ft or less so at 40ft should be ideal filter depth and so shouldn't be getting that much overblown red from any decent quality filter IMHO.

Maybe you should pass on your results to URPro too as they must use a far less scientific methods to their testing and are pretty new to the filter game, unlike the guys at Polar Pro that is.

 

[crosshairs]

The pics of the polar pro at 40ft in the other post look far too red for me and I have not seen that with any of the other filters I tried with a hero2. Auto white balance never errors on the red side unless very shallow 5m/15ft or less so at 40ft should be ideal filter depth and so shouldn't be getting that much overblown red from any decent quality filter IMHO.

Yes, I noticed the red problem also....
I took some video in Cancun last month with my Polar Pro...I was not at all happy with how it came out.....both at 85 feet and 50 feet it just looks terrible..dare I say it looked better with no filter ..I doubt very much I will be using the Polar Pro again

 

[Marty Cerven]

I think it explains why it does better then other filters in poorer conditions as its just over saturating the red channel which the AWB handles better then when its lacking with pretty much all the other filters.

I found it a little with the cheap oculus filter but not anywhere near that bad and it actually was very close in colour to the URPro just darker and a little less consistent. This isnt really helping and though they are kind of addressing the AWB issues and trying to force the issue with a darker filter you lose detail and more light overall. And in ideal conditions where filters should do their best it will end up too red as has been seen by pretty much every user example I have seen so far. I dont have the filter and after my dealings with them I have no interest in buying one though I would have had they not contacted me first lol.

 

[yarik83]

crosshairs, is your dissatisfactory video available online somewhere?

I like to gather empirical evidence. So far I have been leaning towards polar pro with Marty recommending SRP filter. I have only found 3 videos with polar pro filter that I consider "not tampered with by manufacturer for sake of upselling the product". If you could, please load a short clip somewhere for the world to see. Thank you much.

If it's SRP that I need to get... then that is what I will get , if its backscattrer then that is what I will get, but before I do I am trying to make sense of this falsely misrepresented lack of available video coverage to make my decision. I know MY red filter for my bonica camera works so I would need to buy 2 for both of my go-pros.

I would really appreciate if you could post what you have. Thank you.

 

[toozler]

I still find using "color temperature" an inadequate method to refer to filters that are there not to "warm" things up, but to absorb wavelengths - the first is a consequence, the last the reason. I am not a pro UW photographer, but the perspective in discussing light and colors must be another in UW photography.


There are many basic conclusions in this review that I have to disagree and I will put them here so you may clarify:

So why is that? It is because the PolarPro filter does have a magenta tint that has the effect of filtering green, it is not too strong but it is there.
On the other side the URPRO filters are simply warming filters so they shift the color temperature all the way down to 2900K however they introduce no special tint so the GoPro in auto white balance compensates for it and produces a normal image.

There is a vestige tint on the image simply because the resin on PolarPro has too much pigment. There's none of "it is and it's not a warming filter", the fact is that one is darker and one is lighter. As Marty pointed out on the previous comment, they force a darker color at the cost of introducing more noise.

The PolarPro seems to be a combination of a CTO filter plus a minus quarter or half green

I can bet my ass that they have no clue what that means, or have done that on purpose. These guys sell diving filters for the Hero STOCK housing (dome lens) which can't even focus underwater! Do you think they even dive? This tells me a lot about a company.

A number of explanations, we have to hope that there has been no manipulation of the clips, so let’s continue with this assumption:

1. The water color in California is quite green as there is plenty of kelp and algae
2. The PolarPro has a magenta tint, the URPRO is just warming the color temperature
3. The SRP dome has a design issue as there is a layer of water between the lens and the filter that may absorb color and can’t be recovered
4. The GoPro White balance itself is pretty green

I'd replace all those for "The GoPro has WB issues that will sometimes freakout and make everything look martian green". We have discussed this here on the forum.

On number 3, please explain how the additional millimeters of water between the lens and the filter that light has to travel can absorb the red/orange/yellow wavelengths significantly to even be mentioned? It would be worth reviewing some of the physics behind the phenomena you are pointing as a flaw.

Apart from the review, I will agree with what was mentioned here and on other topics: all videos shot with this snap on Polar look extremely RED, the water is red, the sand is red, what was black became red. On some very brief moments it does look decent and that's only when a very narrow optimal depth and light condition is met. That's the price of an over-tinted acrylic.

 

[Interceptor121]

Here we go again the SRP sales reps kicking off?

Where do we start, oversaturation of the red channel or darker filter or pigments?

I think I will not bother as unlike Toozler I do not have an optical light absorption sensor so I can't measure power by wavelength (I am sure that the people at both PolarPro and SRP have this piece of equipment? :cool2:I do not think so!)
Toozler I thought of letting you know that this polarpro plastic is perspex done with a casting process and has no optical defects, not sure how you previously determined injection molding in your 'pigment analysis'

When it comes to the color of this filter this is actually less red than the URPRO it also absorbs the same amount of light as measured by the fstop the gopro has fixed aperture so it will play with ISO and shutter speed as it likes.

When it comes to the scientific aspects I bet none of those guys has actually done any lab tests including URPRO the filters are the result or empirical tests. URPRO had in the 90s access to a whole range of film photographers, Polarpro has access to the sea in california. So URPRO filter is a temperature shift and the other one is a filter tested in california where the water is pretty green. I bet they have not done more than 20 dives if that to test it.

Anyway I realize it is a bit harder to understand the histograms so I think a bit of reading helps:
1. fstops: I realise some of you don't understand what this means, it is a measure of exposure of the picture maybe you can google it, as you can see the pictures at same ISO shutter and aperture are the same. So there is not a case of a filter being darker than the other they are pretty much the same
2. Histograms. There is no case of saturation of red channel or other crap, the polarpro has a magenta tint you can see it on the right side on the highlights. It maybe useful you guy learn how to read an histogram when your OLAS equipment is not available so that you can avoid jumping the gun
3. Color temperature. It is obvious especially for toozler that he is watching too much youtube of people with led pens in colored sheets. Light in water is different than on land. Warming filters are useful to make the camera feel at home and white balance properly. Nobody sane of mind would blow 1000's of dollars to do lab test on land when light in water is different and there you cannot run any tests. You know light in water is bluer so colder so you already know you need some color temperature orange filter. Although theoretically you are right blue water filter are not designed to selectively filter part of the spectrum but just to push the whole of it down a few thousands K. It is called mired shift.
4. White balance, it may be useful to understand what the camera auto white balance does or doesn't if you understand mired shift you get this easily
5. Water absorbs color that is why you put a filter close to the lens, which is what SRP has done with the new version. So they must have realised themselves it was not worth doing a dome shape also as the lens of the gopro is not rectilinear there is really no reason spending money on such a shape as it won't correct distortion. It is the same with wide angle lens. You take a lens by itself and measure 0.6x magnification then you put it on the camera and find out the effective magnification is now 0.65x you lost around 10% for that tiny layer of water between the port and the back of the wet lens. Similar issue with a filter with a gap. Go on a snow slope with a pair of UV goggles and lift them a bit see what color you see now

---------- Post added January 13th, 2013 at 09:27 AM ----------

Yes, I noticed the red problem also....
I took some video in Cancun last month with my Polar Pro...I was not at all happy with how it came out.....both at 85 feet and 50 feet it just looks terrible..dare I say it looked better with no filter ..I doubt very much I will be using the Polar Pro again

Is it this yours?
[youtubehq]S0JuGphbBYs[/youtubehq]
85 feet won't look good with any filter

 

[Marty Cerven]

Thanks for the laugh, I hope you dont actually consider anything in that post a true analysis of anything. An underwater filter test purely done on land with your trusty scientific rx100

These pics explain everything I need to know about both filters
http://interceptor121.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/gopr0009.jpg?w=479

The Polar Pro shot is much softer and has much less detail then the URPro shot, optically the Polar Pro is rubbish in comparison and you must agree on that surely. Even using your scientific instrument rx100 it shows more noise and lack of detail in the polar pro filter on land. This is with a better sensor then a gopro its already struggling more in decent light.

I think that is where you get a difference in your $53 dollars or do you not remember this comment of yours on my yt channel.

Interceptor121 1 week ago
The amount of fringing and chromatic aberration that shows here is awful I don't think it would be worth taking it in water as the flat port would make it worse
I think SPP has demonstrated that with good quality lenses like the Inon UCL165 you can achieve some good results in terms of focus distance but lenses is not where you can go cheap. Good optics cost money a bit like good lights

Any reply to that comment and are you still questioning why someone would spend more money on better optics as your lad based pic shows how poor the polar pro is.

Purely skeptical analysis of the flaws of the dome filter which you dont have and you haven't even taken any of them underwater either which gives your analysis extra credibility.

You know all the technical terms like f-stop

You know more then URPro regarding underwater filters, and your testing instrumentation and practices are far better then theirs are.

In terms of polarizing filters if you want a cheap crappy filter I am sure you can get a $2 55mm one on ebay, but then you know how cheap optics effect image quality. Though you'd still prefer paying for the Polar Pro one when you could get a blurfix3 and cheap 55mm filter for the same price or a regular blurfix or backscatter dive housing for the hero2 and 55mm filters. Then as your analysis says you can get a cheap warming filter as no need to spend money on quality filters or optics.

But you also have the option of better quality filters, and SRP do have a URPro CY dome for the blurfix3 so your wrong again there and I pointed that out last time yet you still stick to the same BS myth.

I hope you dont think you are actually giving any useful analysis here but I do enjoy reading it for a laugh.

SRP sales reps lol, maybe should get URPro's engineer to chime in and give you a bit of a clue but I think theyd find it hard to stop laughing at your testing procedures and conclusive physical proof. More like random untested theories with more holes in them then swiss cheese.

If there is a rep here most likely it may be you for Polar Pro,maybe you are the head engineer heck you do have an RX-100 and you know what an F-stop is so you sure are qualified enough. Your blog post looks nothing other then a polar pro advertisement and is about as credible as that same video you keep posting from them. Whats the point of showing the front and back of the polar pro packaging in the blog post, no pic of any SRP filter yet you are comparing them lol and you were promising evidence and proof showing why its design is so flawed yet you dont even have one there. Big advertisment for Polar Pro but maybe you should have kept those pictures off the blog as it doesnt make them look too good.

So as a Hero2 user would I spend $29.99 for Polar Pro or $83.00 for the SRP dome the only true removable filters? Or should we say what do I get for additional $53?

Straight from Polar Pro's own marketing campaign that one, are you sure you arent a rep?

Enough said I think.

 

[crosshairs]

Is it this yours?
[youtubehq]S0JuGphbBYs[/youtubehq]
85 feet won't look good with any filter

No, that looks like part of the museum...that's only in about 30 feet of water ..I can post mine if your really interested

 

[Interceptor121]

No, that looks like part of the museum...that's only in about 30 feet of water ..I can post mine if your really interested

Yes please
You should also consider how to use a filter as opposed to blame it
You point the camera upwards frequently that will create a hue you need to be pointing horizontal or downwards
You can send me the raw files if you like on dropbox but don't bother about 85 feet there is no red light left there, the 50 feet would be good

Marty those are gopro shots not RX100 the rx100 does not have that field of view even someone like you should be able to figure that out, yes the gopro is crap at pictures it chooses randomly shutter and iso for some reason one picture is higher iso and higher shutter speed the other one is not, funny as the camera was on a tripod. However there is no point explaining that to you as you don't know what exposure means
Now if you can stop hijacking thread and go into your box it would be appreciated
I pay for the equipment I use unlike you and I have two UR/PRO filters for the records that I have paid for too