Panasonic Lumix DMC G3 Camera

[colinbm]

Thanks Andrea & Zach

Ones passion is anothers poison :(

So perhaps this CWB is OK for this stack of 2mm + 2mm, S8612 & UG5.....

I'll have to get some thinner filters to try, one day.

Yes Andrea, the Wollensak is a lil' cutie, for sure :)

Col

[colinbm]

Ha ha, I just l o v e, Custom White Balance......................NOT :)

More fiddling with CWB produced this photo of my poor Allamanda Flower. It was rescued from the composting material below the plant & replaced on top of a clump of leaves :(

I brought out the Colour Checker into the sunlight to do some snaps of it & decided to take a CWB off the grey card inside the back section........eureka....BUGs eye view & not the Wascally Old Wabbit's either ;)

Col

 

 

Allamanda Flower, crop, in BUG view.

Panasonic G3 converted, ISO 200, f5.6 at 1/10 second, with Wollensak 25mm f1.9 C-mount lens & S8612 + UG5, both 2mm, filters.

[colinbm]

Ok, I have got over PTFE CWB for mixed light.

I tried this filter stack, S8612 + UG5, both 2mm, filters, with another grey card & got better results.

No flowers this time, just the foliage. Three different types of foliage, Allamanda, Hibiscus & another creeper with seed pods like miniature peas.

I was taken by the variety of shades / colouring of these leaves.

 

Have I done this posting of the Panasonic G3 conversion to death, or are there still some elements of its usefulness that I haven't covered yet?

Col

 

 

Three different types of foliage, Allamanda, Hibiscus & another creeper with seed pods like miniature peas, in BUG colours.

Panasonic G3 converted, ISO 200, f5.6 at 2 seconds, with Wollensak 25mm f1.9 C-mount lens & S8612 + UG5, both 2mm, filters.

[JCDowdy]

Curious you do not get the expected CWB with your PTFE.

 

I for one appreciated the sharing of your G3 conversion experience, thanks!

However as a G3 user I could be biased :D

 

Perhaps if we had camera specific sub areas those of us who use a common UV system could keep this sort of dialog going.

[Andrea B.]

You are certainly welcome to keep the dialogue going for as long as you wish whether we have specific camera boards or not. There are so few folks shooting UV that it seems wasteful to make separate boards for Lumix, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Canon, Olympus, what-did-I-leave-out. :D

[JCDowdy]

Tis true,

 

we few.

[nfoto]

Hard-won field and practical experience with any UV capable camera/lens should be shared to the benefit of the larger community. The kind of camera gear used by any body interested in UV photography is absolutely immaterial as long as satisfactory UV captures are made. So bring them on.

[colinbm]

I am more the experimenter than the photographer, & I have enjoyed posting this thread.

Thanks for the encouragement, I'll keep dreaming up things to try & post the results as they come to hand.

I am waiting for a piece of, sintered fibrous PTFE, from UVIROptics, to arrive in the next week or so, then I will do a CWB shoot-out with some different CWB targets that I have used. I am impressed with the range of the CWB that the Panasonic G3 can handle, even if it falls outside the documented range of the cameras display & that of PhotoNinja.

Perhaps some software like RawDigger has a displayed output of the CWB captured ? PhotoNinja is limited to displaying 2,000K to 15,000K, but sometimes the camera has captured outside this range & displays it OK, but if you try to make subtle changes it won't do that properly. If the CWB falls within the PhotoNinja range of 2,000K to 15,000K, then the adjustment is very gradual & repeatable.

Unfortunately, I am a novice with post processing software.

Col

[Andrea B.]

Oh you will learn the software thing eventually. We all do. :D

 

I think the CWB shootout sounds cool !! And probably could use its own separate post so it doesn't get lost at the tail end of this long post?

 

If you like, you can put a couple of the under-2000K raw photos into Dropbox, then I'll run them thru Raw Digger and post it for you.

 

I'm trying to think of a converter which goes below 2000K. That seems to be some kind of limit for most of them.

[colinbm]

I have had a look-around at the few post processing software that I have & Adobe PSE11 shows the range in the metadata, 2,000 to 50,000K in the RAW Editor.

This is the widest range I have found, but I would like to find lower than 2000k too.

I guess I am trying to find if the G3 can record a CWB below 2,000K & what can display that figure in the metadata or raw data.

I think it would be useful, like the diagram here....

http://lowel.tiffen....emystified.html

 

[nfoto]

ASP goes down to 1500 K. Can't remember how high but at least 10000 if not 15000 K. PhotoNinja covers 2000 K to 15000 K

[colinbm]

Thanks Bjorn, but I am not familiar with ASP ?

Col

[nfoto]

Try Corel Aftershot Pro 2.

[colinbm]

Thanks Bjorn

Are there any preferences of using PhotoNinga, PhotoShop Elements or Corel After Shot Pro 2.

Col

[nfoto]

I do most RAW processing in PhotoNinja, with the occasional visit in ASP2. Every third blue moon I'm using ACR in Photoshop CS6. On my Linux boxes I run ASP, RawTherapee and an old version of Bibble 5, but the main data massaging is conducted on the Windows platforms. All processed files end up at the same network storage resources no matter from where they originate.

[colinbm]

Thanks Bjorn

I like PhotoNinja, but I haven't worked out how to reduce the noise I am seeing ?

I just had a look at ASP2 with one of the UV shots & I am liking how it is handling the colour temp better, or it is my imagination :D

Col

[nfoto]

In PN, the Adjustments panel lists a series of options, one of which is labelled Noise Ninja. Go there while an image is active, and explore the options and functionality. You can set up noise reduction in many ways (like most stuff in PN), and ensure you experiment with luminance noise reduction and its sliders. The adjustment needs to be set to 'Manual' if you get a white, yellow, or red indicator instead of the green light. Sometimes PN tries to outsmart the user by setting the action to 'Smart Preset', which often fails. For UV images, always change this to 'Manual'. Do note that the sliders under the 'Color noise reduction' are quite gentle in their action and frequently need to be pushed all the way with UV images. The 'Defringe' slider is actually a hidden manner of reducing chromatic aberration.

 

In the usual PN style, you have to click 'Apply' before the action is carried out on the loaded file.

[colinbm]

Thanks Bjorn

I'll look at that closer tomorrow.

Col

[colinbm]

Thanks Bjorn

I looked at the Noise Ninja section a bit closer & eventually saw some results, very subtle & slow to change but I eventually saw what was happening :D

Col

[colinbm]

Here is an interesting interactive example of colour temperature, see Figure 6.8.

http://www.kcvs.ca/martin/astro/kingsu/unit2/62/chp6_2.html

Col

[colinbm]

I have added some more notations to the colour temperature illustration that I have shown before......

[colinbm]

Another day...........another experiment.........

This time I did a UV Sparticle Filter Test with just the bare sensor of the Panasonic G3, no lens or other glass was attached.

I first used the Baader U2 over the cameras lens opening & took a Custom White Balance, of a cloudy, but sunny sky.

I then took a snap with each, of four, narrow band UV filter that I have, of a cloudy, but sunny sky & I kept all shots at 125 th seconds to show any differences in intensity of the light.

Cheers

Col

 

 

Bare sensor after CWB with BaaderU2 (320nm - 390nm), no other filters, or lens.

 

 

 

Bare sensor after CWB taken through a 340nm filter.

 

 

 

Bare sensor after CWB taken through a 350nm filter.

 

 

 

Bare sensor after CWB taken through a 370nm filter.

 

 

 

Bare sensor after CWB taken through a 386nm filter.

[nfoto]

As expected for a sequence of narrow-band filters on a sensor with wide-band UV response. Looks good.

 

Because natural light is used for illumination, not equally easy to ascertain whether deeper UV (340, 350 nm filters) incur a penalty in terms of sensitivity - probably they do but perhaps not to a large extent. Actual UV images will be instructive if a lens with excellent UV transmission is deployed.

[colinbm]

Thanks Bjorn

Yes I have done some UV Sparticle Filter Array tests with lenses, before. I just wanted to see if there was any drop-off of the light at these lower UV responses. I was happy to see no dropping off of the UV light, with these filters.

One day I'll find some lower wavelength filters to do these tests with too.

Cheers

Col

[Andrea B.]

Now this is where Raw Digger would be useful to give you some factual data about the experiment.

 

RD would show the actual exposure levels in each channel so you could make a better judgement about the relative sensitivity of the filters. On my monitor the 340 & 370 filters show more of a hotspot, next the 386. The 350 least of all.

 

And RD would disregard white balance to show the raw color response of the camera.