Dr Klaus Schmitt
Well-known member
-
Please use real names.
Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed
Firstname Lastname
Register
We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know! -
Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!
Taking one shot through the same lens in visible and ultraviolet light
- Thread starter Dr Klaus Schmitt
- Start date
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Klaus,
I would love to see the UV blue bg removed so the UV-reflected flower will stand out as that is a winner in vibrancy!
Asher
I would love to see the UV blue bg removed so the UV-reflected flower will stand out as that is a winner in vibrancy!
Asher
Dr Klaus Schmitt
Well-known member
That flower was in located in front of a crackled glass which gets that vibrant color when shot in UV unfortunately as it transmits UV only to about 380nm...
Dr Klaus Schmitt
Well-known member
Tat flower was in located in front of a crackled glass which gets that vibrant color when shot in UV unfortunately as it transmits UV only to about 38...
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
May I cut out the big?
Or can you do that?
Or can you do that?
Dr Klaus Schmitt
Well-known member
Sorry, I'm lost. What??
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Dr Klaus Schmitt
Well-known member
Dr Klaus Schmitt
Well-known member
Lars Harrekilde-Petersen
Member
I'm about to get started shooting UV and IR and would love to know how you get both UV and VIS image in one shot. Or is that involving a secret filter / technique somehow? I saw the other post where you showed images saying you worked for BBC where they asked for colorful UV images instead of more or less monochrome images.
Regards,
Lars
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Lars,
You arrived at the right place. Welcome to OPF.
And yes, Klaus will likely have all the answers you need!
Asher
You arrived at the right place. Welcome to OPF.
And yes, Klaus will likely have all the answers you need!
Asher
Dr Klaus Schmitt
Well-known member
Welcome here Lars!
Well, I used a beamsplitter for that, but I keep a few things for me, what's on my site http://uvir.eu is made public ;-)
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Lars Harrekilde-Petersen
Member
OK. Thanks for your reply.
If I understand it correctly, a beam splitter is composed of two prisms put together where some of the light goes right through and some is going out in a 90-degree angle. In other words, you must have two identical cameras and lenses to do the job - and most likely also different filters on each lens in order to capture visual and UV separately.
Anyway, this is obviously much more advanced than I want to go into. Interesting to know, but beyond me!
You are obviously doing some photographic wizardry
Lars Harrekilde-Petersen
Member
Yes. But unfortunately his technique is more advanced than I can follow!
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Klaus is an academic! Likely as not he expects you are knowledgeable.Yes. But unfortunately his technique is more advanced than I can follow!
However explain what you understand and where you are lost!
He is smart enough to steer you in the right direction if you make it clear where you are in your decision making.
Asher
Lars Harrekilde-Petersen
Member
I think I understand the general idea (if what I concluded above is correct) of the basic setup, but I won't follow that (advanced) path. I will stick to one camera and lens at a time.
Dr Klaus Schmitt
Well-known member
It is quite some effort admittedy, changing filters at otherwise unchanged setup is much easier actually, and as long as the subject / object does not move, very good results can be obtained easily!
Lars Harrekilde-Petersen
Member
Thanks again. Slightly off-topic, but still related:
Since I haven't received my converted camera yet, I am wondering where the UV and IR wavelengths "land" in the Bayer filter of the sensor. At first, I assumed that UV will be found in the blue channel and IR in the red channel, but then I thought that UV is beyond violet and when talking RGB signal, violet is a mix of blue and red...
In short, I am wondering if - for instance - it would be possible to "filter out" infrared by lowering or even turning off the red channel in Photoshop. Or will I then also turn off / lower parts of the UV signal then?
Will UV light "land" in all RGB channels? Or just blue and red?
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Lars,
Read this.
When one is using an RGB color space, the various light energies are mapped as best as possible into a scheme of a matrix of additive colors perceived as all the colors shown in a limited 2D triangle.
Light energies outside of the wavelengths of visible light will be either cut off and not represented or remapped to the triangle edges.
You are asking is infrared or UV that is not cut off by filters would be mapped at all and contribute to the adjacent red or blue of the RGB perceptual triangle.
I think that those leaked wavelengths beyond the visible spectrum would be either lost or else remapped to the edges and falsely enrich “colors” there.
I think the right question is “what color space does one set the camera to in a camera where cut off filters have been removed?”
Asher
Read this.
When one is using an RGB color space, the various light energies are mapped as best as possible into a scheme of a matrix of additive colors perceived as all the colors shown in a limited 2D triangle.
Light energies outside of the wavelengths of visible light will be either cut off and not represented or remapped to the triangle edges.
You are asking is infrared or UV that is not cut off by filters would be mapped at all and contribute to the adjacent red or blue of the RGB perceptual triangle.
I think that those leaked wavelengths beyond the visible spectrum would be either lost or else remapped to the edges and falsely enrich “colors” there.
I think the right question is “what color space does one set the camera to in a camera where cut off filters have been removed?”
Asher
Jerome Marot
Well-known member
The idea that a camera will extends its sensitivity to nearby bands by still working in the same manner is generally wrong (it is only true for Foveon sensors, because of the way they work).
The filter matrix on your camera is not designed for IR and, usually, the pigments used are transparent to IR. That means that IR is present in all channels.
As to UV, I seem to recall that it usually is only present in the blue channel. Here again, because of the pigments used. But silicium is not very sensitive to UV anyway, so you will only be able to detect its signal when using, in front of your lens, a filter which cuts everything but UV.
Asher Kelman
OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief
Jérôme,
Good point about IR contaminating all 3 channels! One can easily forget that!
Do you know what “color space” one sets the camera to when one removes the factory IR UV filter and replaces it with optical glass?
Would you choose ProphotoRGB or it makes no difference, when photographing nebulae?
Asher
Good point about IR contaminating all 3 channels! One can easily forget that!
Do you know what “color space” one sets the camera to when one removes the factory IR UV filter and replaces it with optical glass?
Would you choose ProphotoRGB or it makes no difference, when photographing nebulae?
Asher
Dr Klaus Schmitt
Well-known member
Depends on Sensor: Nikon sensors react to UV mostly on the RED channel after blue whih ends around 380nm! And forget that idea to separate channels, any bit of IR any sensor is SO MUCH MOR sensitive too that it ruins any UV image!
Here have a look:
Dr Klaus Schmitt
Well-known member
Oh and btw. even if you COULD split the channels for UV and IR, how would you make sure the plane of sharpness for UV and iR would be the same??
Only very few and very expensive lenses allow that..
Only very few and very expensive lenses allow that..