DEMA 2008: Nauticam

by Eric Cheng Wednesday, October 29th, 2008

NAUTICAM #4451
October 24, 2008 - 12:40 PM

Nauticam, a total newcomer to the industry, demonstrated their new, patent-pending white-balancing device for dome ports. The WB-PORT is a translucent white iris that can be opened and closed via a knob on the side of the port. Similar to the way an ExpoDisc works, the Nauticam diffuses incoming light, and provides your camera’s sensor with an “average” light value with which to white-balance.

At the moment, you may think that this product is aimed only at the filtered SLR crowd. You’re right, of course, except that we are on the brink of massive convergence. Two SLRs that shoot HD video have already been released; once you stick a fisheye lens on your camera, how are you going to white-balance? Even a white slate held up to the dome point isn’t going to give you enough coverage for a proper white balance (you can’t zoom). The Nauticam may end up being a good solution this this problem.

On land, filtering incoming light works well when the lens is pointed at a light source. I’ve given this method a try underwater by converting a Light & Motion flip filter into an ExpoDisc, and I have to say that I’ve gotten mixed results. Still, if you’re shooing a fisheye lens in a dome point (*see below for comments about why this may not work), you pretty much have no options for proper white-balancing unless you are on a sandy bottom. It’s great to see new people coming into the industry with revolutionary products.

A demonstration of the Nauticam white-balance port

The Nauticam WB-PORT should be ready by January 2009, and will fit Nexus, Ikelite, and Sea & Sea port openings.

Also, I tried to convince Edward to build an extension ring version (it looks like it might not be possible, but I can hope!). A 25mm port extension that supports white balance would be a great addition to my arsenal of underwater photography accessories.

Hi Eric, I am sorry the Wetpixel coverage seemed to have started an endless debate over whether the WB-port works. I have been using my own Nikkor 12-24 U/W with various Nikon bodies for years and perhaps my mistake was designing the port according to this lens. All the photos I displayed in Dema were shot with this lens and the result have been pleasing for myself. Several weeks before the Dema we realised the public wants wider lenses such as fisheye to be able to use in the port. That's why we had delayed the launch and were redesigning the mechanism. You actually had precisely pointed out the 2 major issues we are working on: 1. To reduce the thickness of the mechanism so as to position the lens further outside. And to be able to accommodate shorter lenses such as the Tokina 10-17. 2. To increase the stroke of the iris advancement so that users can put thicker diopters or filters in front of the lenses. It is also necessary for the iris to advance through the entire thickness of the integral hook of any fisheye lenses. As pointed out by Dr. Alex Mustard during the Dema semilar, some photograghers are hoping to explore different visual effects outside the limitations of using strobes. We hope our humble contribution helps. We appreciate you understanding that it took a lot of courage for a small and young company to participate in this well-developed industry. Fortunately we received lots of positive comments during the Dema show. You are very correct that we are just at the beginning of a new digital age. I look forward to testing new cameras with excellent low light capabilities and HD video modes with the new port. Thank you for your support. Edward
Posted by Edward Lai on 2008-11-02 18:56:00 I did NOT say that advertising money WAS involved. I simply said that IF it WAS, then the review should be so labeled.
Posted by divegypsy on 2008-11-02 16:19:31 I have nothing else to say to you, Fred. To imply that advertising money is involved shows that you have no idea how Wetpixel works. To the rest of Wetpixel readers: we'll continue to keep open minds and explore new products as still and motion imaging converges. I'm sure Wetpixel will actually test the final version of Nauticam's product at some point to see how useful it is!
Posted by Eric Cheng on 2008-11-02 16:14:35 I feel you call it like it is. If a product doesn't work reasonably well and consistently, it isn't worth spending a lot of money on OR wasting people's time on. Eric says at the beginning "I’ve given this method a try underwater by converting a Light & Motion flip filter into an ExpoDisc, and I have to say that I’ve gotten mixed results" So right from the start, this method of trying to achieve white balance is questionable. Add to that the fact that the product postions the lens badly with respect to the dome. The net result is that you are suggesting that photographers consider using a product that may be of little value for its intended purpose, white balance, AND degrades the optical performance of their camera's lens. I walked by this product's booth without stopping. And that is what I feel a responsible reporter should do, just walk away. Or talk with the product maker to suggest the probles rather than present the product to readers as worth of consideration. Or is advertising money involved? If so, the review should be labeled as mere product promotion in return for monetary consideration. Fred
Posted by divegypsy on 2008-11-02 15:40:06 Finally, if you don't understand white-balancing with incident light, see this article: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/expodisc.htm
Posted by Eric Cheng on 2008-11-01 18:40:27 Even though Fred was rude, he does have a valid point about the nodal point of the lens in relation to the center of the dome. At the moment, your product moves the front surface of the filter up as the dial turns, which is a good thing. If it could move even further forward, you might be able to use wider lenses in the port and have the nodal point of the lens(es) in the right place. You might also want to experiment with the curvature of the dome (having a larger radius so that the center is pushed back where the nodal point of the lens is likely to be).
Posted by Eric Cheng on 2008-11-01 18:36:47 Edward - thanks for coming here to post. Don't worry about people like Fred (divegypsy). Some people are simply incapable of simple things like common courtesy (not to mention a lack of foresight into where digital imaging is going). We welcome you here at Wetpixel!
Posted by Eric Cheng on 2008-11-01 18:34:07 Hi Eric and friends of Wetpixel, First of all, thanks to Eric for nice coverage. One reason we postponed the launch of the product is to try redesign the mechanism to accommodate fisheye lenses, which are typically shorter in length compared with wide-angle zoom lenses such as the Nikon 12-24mm, 17-35mm and prime wide angles such as 14mm, 16mm etc. The existing specification works fine, and tested, for lenses with maximum of 115 degrees of view. Any criticism or advices are welcome as we strike to improve our product to become practical and workable for expericenced u/w photograpgher as you guys. Edward
Posted by Edward Lai on 2008-11-01 00:25:05 This is still a stupid product. Any lens so deeply recessed with the dome to be completely behind the white plastic iris is also so far back that the nodal point of the lens is badly positioned relative to the dome's center. And to get an acceptable reading you have to turn the whole camera away from the subject and toward the light source. Something not always convenient or possible. It is clearly intended for people who have more dollars than sense.
Posted by divegypsy on 2008-10-31 19:41:57 ?? I don't get this at all. Obviously you can't use a fisheye lense as divegypsy wrote. So what is it for? And, nevertheless, I still don't get it. The idea of white balancing uw is to white balance against something that is at the distance of the subject you are shooting. I mean, it's not only the distance from the surface, but also the distance to the subject. This filter is always close than a super macro subject. And, how on earth am I supposted to attach this to my Ikelite uw-housing??? /Peter
Posted by Segerdahl on 2008-10-30 09:57:42 OK, so replace "fisheye" with something a bit longer, and you'll get the point of the commentary.
Posted by Eric Cheng on 2008-10-30 02:02:24 If a full-frame fisheye lens is so deeply recessed in the dome port that it is completely behind the Nauticam, it will almost be suffering vignetting (image cut-off at the corners of the image).
Posted by divegypsy on 2008-10-30 01:58:58