Welcome
Welcome to goprouser

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you full access to view most discussions and access.. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. In addition, registered members also see less advertisements. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today! Any issues email goprousergroup@gmail.com

Backscatter vs IofMyne Lense, or maybe Blurfix

Discuss the Submerged World of GoPro. NO Camera issues Please.

Re: Backscatter vs IofMyne Lense, or maybe Blurfix

Postby archiebald » Tue Apr 10, 2012 4:26 pm

martcerv wrote:I haven't seen anyone with the Backscatter housing yet, they're test videos look ok but it will be interesting to see what general users think of the setup. Not sure if its plastic or metal but I wont be getting this setup myself as I'm happy with the Blurfix and its a very high quality aluminum part which has served me very well. If they get in touch with us here and want an honest review we can do that for them and it would be interesting to compare against the Blurfix in performance and build quality.

I may get the magic filter from them though just to do a comparison against the URpro ones but again this filter being plastic is the only real difference price wise between the 2 options and even though its good to have that wet option its not a huge deal for me. The backscatter has borrowed much from the design of the Blurfix and made the wet filter option which is a plus, but I do like the quality of the blurfix adapter and URpro glass filters underwater even though they aren't wet swappable.


Recently, I have been closely looking at both the the Blurfix and Backscatter options and I find myself slightly preferring the Backscatter for the following reasons.

1. Lens port is glass vs the original plastic + glass in the Blurfix. Less lens/air interfaces should theoretically give a better image quality to the Backscatter version. The glass is well protected by the filter mount and is pressure tested beyond the OEM case.
2. Backscatter has wet swappable filter options. Great if you are on a multilevel dive or have changing light conditions up top, or if you want to shoot video partly in natural light / partly wth UW lights.
3. One or two stories have cropped up of the UR Pro filters cracking under pressure. It's true that the camera is protected, but it would be a bummer to lose the use of your video camera part way through a dive, especially if like me, there are not so many opportunities to dive. These are just everyday camera filters that are not really up to the job of taking the pressure so it is not surprising to see one or two failures.
4. The Backscatter case will also accept the low profile modified UR Pro 55mm screw in filters being sold by SRP so you can get the best case (IMO) with the best filter options and with no pressure on the filter, no risk of cracking under pressure.

Having said all that, the Blurfix does look good and is building a good reputation so it is not that easy to choose between them.
archiebald
 
Posts: 153
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:36 am

 

Re: Backscatter vs IofMyne Lense, or maybe Blurfix

Postby Rambo » Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:45 pm

archiebald wrote:1. Lens port is glass vs the original plastic + glass in the Blurfix. Less lens/air interfaces should theoretically give a better image quality to the Backscatter version. The glass is well protected by the filter mount and is pressure tested beyond the OEM case.


The original GoPro housing lens is GLASS not plastic.

Having secondary waterproofing if water enters the filter adapter is a huge advantage if you knock and break the filter.
User avatar
Rambo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6588
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:34 pm
Location: Mooloolaba, Qld Au

Re: Backscatter vs IofMyne Lense, or maybe Blurfix

Postby theron1033 » Wed Apr 11, 2012 1:33 am

Hey guys, i just recently bought the backscatter lens, with a magic filter and polarize filter, and i love it! although rambo does not want to to publicize a 3rd party item on this forum which i highly understand, i did however speak to the manager at backscatter and told him to get in touch with you Rambo. I think they are going to plan to send you some gear to review,if you accept the offer and also help out with the forum.


back to the backscatter lens itself! - seems like very high quality material possibly machined deralin? or a high density plastic, because it is very strong! i dropped it in the tub the other day and not even a scratch. the glass is also fairly thick and does not scratch easily. it's installed nicely and maintains a fairly low profile, the testing of the camera went well for me, i did tests in all 5 modes 170 fov and no vignetting! very surprising. The lens and housing is wrapped in bubble wrap and shipped in a custom designed box that also comes with a manual and instructions. the filters -- optional magic filter is $40 and an optional polarize filter is $20 i haven't tired out the polarize filter yet but i have tried the magic filter, they are very easy to install and remove, being held in by a nicely designed rubber system, you can also use any screw in 55mm lens but it will slightly vignette in wide FOV. this is a very high quality item and between itself and Blurfix i would only recommend either of them for a underwater fix.

if you have any questions about it feel free to ask. total cost for me was $160 - including flat lens, housing pre installed and tested, magic filter, and polarize filter.
You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take.
—Wayne Gretzky
User avatar
theron1033
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:29 am
Location: Bahamas

Re: Backscatter vs IofMyne Lense, or maybe Blurfix

Postby suryaprihadi » Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:59 am

Deralin , I think you mean DERLIN.
Derlin can absorb water approx 1% over time.
http://www.plasticsintl.com/datasheets/Delrin_150.pdf

I use Derlin for speargun tracks but the tolerance required is very very low, so even at 5% water absorbtion is no big deal.

For strength you can't beat aluminum, I mean plastic vs aluminum. However, there is one advantage of using Derlin. It does not corrode over time like aluminum. Aluminum will and can corrode, it will give out that whitish powder like substance called alu-oxide. There then the corossion stops when the alu-oxide became the surface coating. Scuba tanks loss of shiny luster is because of this alu-oxide.

For a Blurfix constant use, one must remove the front filter ( lens ) to clean and lubricate the filter thread and the adaptor thread every now and then.

However, there is no way a plastic RED filter can beat URpro Cyan kind of red filter. The optical clarity of glass made it why GLASS is always used in expensive lens and filters. For the quality minded, with big monitor or big TV...........BlurFix with URpro cyan is a good solution.

For simplicity, the German marolon plastic lens lens is OK.

BackScatter one, since I have not owned it YET, me can't comment.

For me I am a test freak. I pushed on purpose URpro cyan beyond its rated limits for fun....... :mrgreen: :mrgreen: and also the clear filter from AGFA.
Here you go, US$300 worth of "learning".
Total Tested v1.JPG
Total Tested v1.JPG (129.11 KiB) Viewed 1209 times



One beauty of BlurFix for the learned UW video guy or land based video guy is, remove its clear lens or the URpro cyan and you got a housing back to GoPro normal curve lens. No darkened area on land mode.....at any format. You can also use ND filters and whatever other filters expensive camera enjoys,as the threading on the BlurFix adaptor is photo/video industry standard size and thread.
No Lens.JPG
No Lens.JPG (142.44 KiB) Viewed 1209 times


So Blurfix can be a jack of all trade, I call it a WHORE :mrgreen: :mrgreen: , it can serve owner with many possibilities. A beautifully engineered WHORE that is........hahahaah. Don't we all love beautiful whores.....hehehe.

.
I am a Forum Sponsor not because I sell stuff.
I owe my knowledge to this forum and I would like to do some payback.
.
suryaprihadi
Forum Sponsor
Forum Sponsor
 
Posts: 4123
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 3:52 am

Re: Backscatter vs IofMyne Lense, or maybe Blurfix

Postby flareside » Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:26 am

Sury, if you are looking for something to bust consider testing a HOYA HD (hardened) UV lens. They are designed for impact but don't give any indication of how much pressure they will take. I have tested one to 150' with no problem but at $50 a pop, I have no real desire to see what it is actually good to.
flareside
 
Posts: 2272
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 12:53 am

Re: Backscatter vs IofMyne Lense, or maybe Blurfix

Postby suryaprihadi » Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:34 am

The AGFA clear / UV breaks at 55 meters or 181 feet. Not bad. So 150 fee should be safe.
I am a Forum Sponsor not because I sell stuff.
I owe my knowledge to this forum and I would like to do some payback.
.
suryaprihadi
Forum Sponsor
Forum Sponsor
 
Posts: 4123
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 3:52 am

Re: Backscatter vs IofMyne Lense, or maybe Blurfix

Postby theron1033 » Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:37 am

i wish i could get my hands on a blurfix setup to see how it compares.

Thats some expensive testing you did there, the urpro cyan filters are $77 ea right? does not look like a good option for deep water diving, but at depths below 100ft if would be far more desirable to use underwater lighting for the gopro and not a filter.

what i like most about the backscatter magic filter is that it's wet mountable, no need to worry about sealant, leakage, and it is still very sturdy. takes about 2 secs to pull it off for land shots, also can be used at 1ft depth with no post editing needed.
You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take.
—Wayne Gretzky
User avatar
theron1033
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:29 am
Location: Bahamas

Re: Backscatter vs IofMyne Lense, or maybe Blurfix

Postby suryaprihadi » Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:03 am

US$77 in USA URpro Cyan,landed my country = PAIN

Any cyan or colored filter is good to 60 feet at BEST. That is it. No matter what brand.

01. There is no issue on sealant leakage, as the sealant is at the 1st installation only. If it is good it is good. The sealant by way its installation, which is being squeezed, it pass 55 meter or 181 meters with flying colors. No leak.
BF2.JPG
BF2.JPG (93.73 KiB) Viewed 1193 times


02. To swap for red/cyan filters ( URPro) just undo the clear filter and install URpro. Its the o-ring that maintain waterproofing within the BlurFix cavity. I also at first thought how the hell they maintain waterproofing when using threaded camera type filter ???? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: but them BlurFix boys are smart.

BF1.JPG
BF1.JPG (117.35 KiB) Viewed 1193 times

BF4.JPG
BF4.JPG (59.7 KiB) Viewed 1193 times


03. I fix dive regulators and I am a certified Level 2 Scubapro Technician and informal Level 3 Tech , meaning I assist in teaching new technicians. I know a lot about how o-ring works.
The Blurfix method of putting o-ring for its sealing of the air void/cavity is smart. It is pressing/squeezing the o-ring, that is the best water sealing for an o-ring. I am talking of a 207BAR regulator pressure at 1st stage mind you, that is 2000 ish meters equivalent pressure of waterproofing integrity. At 2nd stage of a regulator being 9 - 10 BAR service, its 80 - 90 meters equivalent of water proofing integrity. The not so good method for an o-ring use is for scuba tank, valve open/close, shaft that you spin to open or close air is encircled by o-ring for sealing. Or a torch light that uses spin method to turn ON, same same. Those are considered dynamic o-rings. Hence you need to replace them once in a while. This are not pure squeeze method. Squeeze method is when contact area actually increase when compared to o-ring encircling a shaft or torch barrel. Squeezed type o-ring use last longer and can be made softer ( lower Duro ) for better sealing without needing to tighten too much, and it is static o-ring too.....not much stress.

.
Last edited by suryaprihadi on Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am a Forum Sponsor not because I sell stuff.
I owe my knowledge to this forum and I would like to do some payback.
.
suryaprihadi
Forum Sponsor
Forum Sponsor
 
Posts: 4123
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 3:52 am

Re: Backscatter vs IofMyne Lense, or maybe Blurfix

Postby theron1033 » Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:06 am

Oh wait, i just asked a representative at backscatter and this is what he said: "The black adapter ring is anodized aluminum and the lens is optical grade glass."

I guess thats why it seems so strong and light.
You miss 100 percent of the shots you never take.
—Wayne Gretzky
User avatar
theron1033
 
Posts: 98
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:29 am
Location: Bahamas

Re: Backscatter vs IofMyne Lense, or maybe Blurfix

Postby suryaprihadi » Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:23 am

Now, let me tell you why URpro is expensive. I too tot initially it is sales pitch garbage.

Any red or colored filter and if they are cheap, they are not "selective" or intelligent....whatever the technical term is I don't know. I am photo stupid :lol: but I know how coating works because I used to have expensive Zeiss and Leupold telescope which has superb coating and some look green but viewing is never green.

If you use a cheapo RED filter, on land or when NOT underwater, you expect the video to be VERY RED ........yep, that is why it is called Cheapo.
Why I bought Blurfix was because not only because Marty's video was good, in terms of color, but I need to test to be happy and I did.

Now, this is my bathroom. Lights are halogen. No extra light used. HD2.
I use 960p 25 fps to show you how little the black edges are. This is the best of all my flat lens housing at 960p. Meaning photo can be great too.

BF5.JPG
BF5.JPG (122.01 KiB) Viewed 1191 times



Slowly see next two screen captures...............hehehehe

BF6.JPG
BF6.JPG (116.48 KiB) Viewed 1191 times


.

Abracadabra !!! Who would thought the URpro is indeed "selective" and not simply MAKE ME RED ....i mean CHEAPO RED. :lol:

BF7.JPG
BF7.JPG (119.62 KiB) Viewed 1191 times


That is why I broke 3 in my chamber to really know its quality. :mrgreen:
It is shallower rating than the clear AGFA filter because URpro is laminated. The special coating is sandwich between two glasses. Meaning the individual glass is thinner than clear ones, even though probably thicker overall. This way the coating can last because it is not exposed to sea water.

I have special amber coating on my Riffe dive mask too and since it is not double sandwich laminated glass, the coating will come off after 5+ years of use if we use saliva and if a dummy use toothpaste ( abrasive ) often as anti fog...............good bye coating :roll:

Money don't lie. If a product which cost a lot can exist and be popular.......... it is not for any reason than........it is GOOD....good enough that people buy them.

SP
Last edited by suryaprihadi on Wed Apr 11, 2012 6:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am a Forum Sponsor not because I sell stuff.
I owe my knowledge to this forum and I would like to do some payback.
.
suryaprihadi
Forum Sponsor
Forum Sponsor
 
Posts: 4123
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 3:52 am

PreviousNext

Return to GoPro Underwater

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

suspicion-preferred