New TV programme in UK. "Life in Colour"

[Adrian]

A new TV programmed aired last night in the UK: Life in Colour, narrated by David Attenborough. (BBC). I think they mentioned it might be available on Netflix for US and other viewers.

 

It showed several examples of UVR in flowers, fish (underwater) and others. They said they had developed a new camera giving "previously unseen images". The set up looked like two cameras at 90 degrees to each other, with a semi silvered mirror between them so they could switch from visible to UV easily.

 

They only showed UVR, not multispectral images showing "insect vision".

 

Very interesting though if you can catch it. There is another episode next week including insect mimicry which should be very interesting!

[Andy Perrin]

I know Klaus consulted for them in the past, I wonder if this was one of his setups.

[JMC]

Adrian, I think the new camera was the polarisation one.

 

The UV setup was 'odd'. I must go back and try and watch it again. It looked as if they were using 60mm Nikkor lenses, and the filter was acting a beam splitter, sending visible one way and UV the other. But there didn't look to be anything directly over the front of the lenses, so is other light getting in too?

 

And, as you say, they were not talking about insect vision specifically, just about their 'UV camera' and 'UV images'.

[JMC]

As far as I am aware they worked with Martin Stevens for the UV photos. He has a book out about 'Life in Colour' anyway - https://tweet.lambda.dance/SensoryEcology

 

I re-watched it today and grabbed a photo of the setup.

 

 

Ignore the black sheet on the right hand side, that seems to be there to stop stray ambient light from being reflected into the UV camera.

 

The flower goes in the 12 o'clock position in the above image.

 

The filter at 45 degrees in the middle of the image reflects visible light to the camera on the left, and lets UV through to the camera at 6 o'clock (which very handily says 'UV' on it). Not sure what the filter is, but given the size it could well be a block of some ZWB material. Would that reflect enough 'visible' light from the surface to create an image in the normal camera?

 

The lenses looks to be a pair of 60mm Micro Nikkor, one for the visible and UV. It is hard to say whether the lens on the 'UV' camera has any additional filtration or if the camera has any internally, but if not then what about ambient light getting into the lens?

 

They didn't look to have bothered trying to do any white balancing on the UV video either so it has a very reddy-purple appearance.

[dabateman]

The lens on the visible camera is a Nikon AF 60mm f2.8 macro (first version). The lens on the UV camera is a AF-D 60mm f2.8 macro (second version). I never tested my 60mm AF-D lens. Now I wonder if its good in UV. The AF-D 105mm f2.8 Nikon macro surprised me and is good in UV.

[colinbm]

I just put this search into YouTube & got episode 1....BBC "Life in Colour"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryxheQjmPO0&ab_channel=ScienceDocumentaryNerd

[Andy Perrin]

Wow, it doesn't sound like they were very sophisticated about their approach to UV. Not even a white balance!

[Stefano]

A white balance would naturally come to mind, even if you are a very beginner and know nothing about false UV colors and so on. Magenta images don't show much colors, and are (literally) not balanced. But their idea (if this is what they did) to use a piece of U-glass to reflect visible light on one camera abd transmit UV to another one was pretty ingenious.

[colinbm]

But their idea (if this is what they did) to use a piece of U-glass to reflect visible light on one camera and transmit UV to another one was pretty ingenious.

 

I think this photo above of the set-up is only to demonstrate the arrangement. It won't work as shown as there is too much of a light leak.

The filter would have to be larger for the lens' field of view & the system in an enclosure to control the light.

[ulf]

I think this photo above of the set-up is only to demonstrate the arrangement. It won't work as shown as there is too much of a light leak.

The filter would have to be larger for the lens' field of view & the system in an enclosure to control the light.

They actually used it.

Look at 22min 30s into the film you posted a link to above. There is also a short glimpse at 49 min.

[colinbm]

They actually used it.

Look at 22min 30s into the film you posted a link to above. There is also a short glimpse at 49 min.

 

It is photoshopped Ulf....you can't see his finger moving in the monitor beside the cameras, fake CGI.

[ulf]

It is photoshopped Ulf....you can't see his finger moving in the monitor beside the cameras, fake CGI.

I am not so sure about that.

I think his finger was not deep enough to get in the way to be seen in the monitor. He was pointing just above the filter.

 

I also think the setup could work optically if the UV-camera had some form of IR-reject filter in iths light path.

It is a way to get both UV and Vis of the object with no parallax at the same time.

Not very practical to work with but doable.

 

It might be that this is just for demonstration of the principle, as you say, but I think they made it work for real and used it that way.

There are industrial optical building blocks with enclosed light path that works like this, but I do not know if they are available for such big cameras and lenses used in the video.

[dabateman]

The camera is clearly marked UV in the photo above. Its funny how we all jump to conclusions that it is full spectrum converted. But it doesn't say FS, it says UV. Its very likely that the camera has a a Baader venus u filter on the sensor like one of Birna's cameras or a MaxMax uv mostly filter.

Also, I haven't watched the video, but it might be monochrome, which is why the images are all magenta. A direct from camera uv monochrome converted image is magenta. They may have kept that as didn't want it black and white since the show is about color.

[JMC]

David, you have a good eye - I'd assumed that both the 60mm lenses were the same.

 

The more I look at the picture of the setup, the more I am thinking it has been 'modified' for the shot in the programme and that the picture isn't live as Colin says. The reason being this - the cameras are sitting within an aluminum frame box which looks to have been partially disassembled. On the right hand side of the image above, one wall of the box remains, and that is covered with some black material (cloth, paper etc). My guess is that when in proper use, the cameras sit within a framework which is covered in black material on the sides and top to keep the majority of the stray light out. This would obviously look rubbish on TV, ("look our our amazing black box"), so it would make sense to open it all up so the viewers can see what is being shot.

[dabateman]

I recently bought a used Nikon 60mm f2.8 macro. So I study every detail that differentiates it from the other models. As I look for lazy none detailed posts on ebay to get the lens as cheap as possible.

Just as I recently studied the Sigma 10-20mm f4/5.6 lens to get one also very cheap in Canon mount. Sigma's are a little harder as you need to know what every mount looks like and the lazy listers will not indicate camera mount. But it's worth it to get a mint barely used lens for almost a tenth its new price from someone whom hasn't used it much.

 

I think you are correct about the black box. David pushes an icon of a saved image at the minute point. That is not a live image. Also it does look like it was adjusted (ripped) for the viewers.

[Andy Perrin]

A direct from camera uv monochrome converted image is magenta. They may have kept that as didn't want it black and white since the show is about color.

Not necessarily on the first part, David. Sony cameras can set an in-camera UV white balance, so if they had wanted it to be monochrome, it would have taken two seconds to do that. But I think you are right about the second part.

[Andrea B.]

Not the first time UV and visible have been videoed at the same time.

Anybody remember this?

At about :45 the screen splits into simultaneous UV and Vis.

(And the UV side is white balanced !!)

We discussed it here in 2018: https://www.ultravio...h__1#entry22822

 

Attenborough's programs are always very interesting.

I liked the way that the Visible "faded" to the UV.