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.