GF1 IR

Congratulations Jack welcome to IR land.

Numbers 3&4 in the fog are just fantastic. Not sure how you processed to retain the green in the grass but do tell !!!!!

Number 1 I like but I think my monitor at work is crushing the blacks in the big shadow of the roof. Is there a way to add more contrast in the sky (clouds) to balance the barn?

Number 2 the detail seems a little mushy and almost like the whole lens has a hot spot (or at least the foreground)

Number 4 gives me a slightly uneasy feeling nothing to do with IR - because of the curve of the traintracks it feels like a slightly tilted horizon.

Too much feedback ???

Jack Flesher said:

Well, I ... am messing around with it trying to figure it out before I write my write-up. Here are some of my first tries and I'd appreciate feedback on the processing. ]

Click to expand...

One is very nice but I wonder if the highlights on the tree on the right might be a bit blown out?

Two seems very soft...wonder if a moderate sharpening would define the corral a bit.

Five seems a bit low contrast for the subject.

Three and four are wonderful...very ethereal light and mood.

Overall great start...what exposure times with the conversion? How do you adjust for focus?

Looks like Terry has basically nailed my thoughts.

Bob

nice work!

Jack Flesher said:

Well, I just got it back from Precision Camera -- did the 665 visible IR conversion -- and am messing around with it trying to figure it out before I write my write-up. Here are some of my first tries and I'd appreciate feedback on the processing. All images were taken with the 14-45:

Click to expand...

Like this one.

IMHO, with the 665nm filter, it is perhaps best to use it for false color IR with punchy colors.

B&W images appear very low in contrast. It is a special look, almost like aged prints.

All images look to be foggy and set a mood.

BTW, Jack, the conversion- does it hold up infinity with all your lenses?

I had my 1DsII converted using the 665 filter and agree it gives that weird punchy color effect. I tried the conversion to B&W in C1 and CS4 with bad results; it wasn’t till I used Canon Digital Pro that I found the answer. I’d suggest the use of the Panasonic’s software to see how the B&W conversion looks; if it turns out anything like Canon’s then there should no problems.

All in all I've been very pleased with the B&W from a 665 filter.

Don

I'll try and answer these in bulk.

First retaining the greens -- with the 665 conversion, at least on the GF1, the greens remain pretty "normal" which was a surprise and somewhat disappointing. However, it works for the fog shots.

On the two B&W's I tried to add a "halation" effect, and that is what causes the soft, hot look on the highlights.

Focus: Precision adjusted the focus for the IR band. However, with the GF1 conversion, the sensor gets set back a bit so you lose crisp infinity focus at the wide end -- 25 Meters seems about it at the 14 setting, but you get to maybe 100 meters at the 45 setting. There is apparently a lens fix for this but then the 14-45 loses a bit of close focus ability when used on a normal camera, so I am still considering that one.

So far, I not overly impressed with the contrast in the B&W conversions --- it seems about like a visible light conversion, albeit with a bit more contrast in the sky. I am also a bit dissatisfied that the greens remain so green, and don't go "light" -- this is a puzzle frankly. One thing I am going to experiment with is swapping the Green channel with the Blue instead of the Red and Blue in post. I am also going to try and get some more information from the folks at Precision -- who by the way are VERY easy to deal with and have been quite helpful and responsive to all my inquiries!

I didn't like the train shot either, simply because it doesn't even resemble IR -- and I posted it because of that.

The two tree and fog shots are my favorites too, and the lone tree is my stand out favorite, though I like the B&W barn shot too -- and FWIW that barn was bright red! But, the dark foreground on the barn is actually new green grass, while the lighter parts are patches of older dead grass...

Exposure: Exposures were pretty normal, all shots were hand-held, and most were like 1/30th to 1/60th at f5.6. One nice thing about the 665 conversion is you get usable exposures and can still add a 720nm filter for stronger IR effects when desired.

Jack Flesher said:

One thing I am going to experiment with is swapping the Green channel with the Blue instead of the Red and Blue in post.

Click to expand...

Jack - the lone tree in the fog is lovely.

In addition to swapping channels try inverting channels in LAB mode. I had some good success with this. Also, I would be very tempted to try some portraits or people shots with your camera - the mood and sensitivity in the images you posted could be well suited for this.

Jack – Very strange regarding the greens. I had a very long conversation with Precision shortly after getting the 1DsII back regarding obtaining a proper custom white balance. I had to go out and find a patch of green grass to shoot to get the custom WB. I don’t get the same effect as you’re getting in that I don’t keep the greens. Difference in sensors? I don’t think so.

We’re making a speed run to the South Rim this weekend and will take the IR and shoot some grass and post it for you so that you can see the difference.

What type of imaging software does Panasonic offer? Is it similar to Canon? Have you tried it with conversions?

Don

My 10D was converted a couple of years ago by Lifepixels. They set a custom WB there--but I changed it a bit to suit. I had to shoot a normal 'custom' WB to get the look I wanted (like Don I shot foliage/grass).

Diane.

Few things to consider:

1. The AA filter stack is (assuming it is the same as the one in G1) 2.75mm thick while most easily available glass stocks (IR or otherwise) is 2.50mm thick.

2. There is no room to "adjust" any focus with the sensor units in these cams (unlike a regular DSLR).

3. Even with a 720nm filter the sensor gets exposed ~2 stops over a regular NMOS sensor.

4. All m4/3rds lenses have pretty efficient IR block filtration. Best to use old manual focus lenses. I strongly recommend Olympus (real) Pen F lenses.

Clearly WB is important, and I used both the one they set for me, and my own -- which happen to be identical, though I used the sky which is what I did with my last conversion. I tried WBing on the green in the raw converter and in CS to no luck -- even though my dropper in C1 and CS showed neutral readouts to within a point, the green still looked green . As soon as it brightens up outside, I will try an in-camera WB on my lawn.

Obviously I need to play around with it a bit more since if I can't kill the green, it's of little use for false-color IR effects. (Though the sepia-and-green effect I was able to render in the tree and fog shots seems to work okay.) I wasn't aware the new 4/3rds lenses had effect IR cut onboard -- that would explain my results. I may have to try a 720 over the front and see what happens. Maybe Precision has some ideas too, so I'll contact them next week...

Don, I have not even loaded the GF1 software and so far have only used C1 to convert the raws. Frankly, knowing my lazy-butt self, I would probably not be inclined to even shoot the GF1 if I needed to use another converter. I know it sounds ridiculous, but I just hate using multiple converters. Now thinking I should have converted a Canon...

I have been shooting with ir with a converted Canon G9, which I had converted soon after the G9 was introduced. Life Pixel converted my G9 with a R72 equivalent filter and have been pleased with the results. I do not recollect ever having a green haze other than by design in PP, nor did I have issue with focus at infinity. I did have and still have problems with focus with subjects and objects that are very close. When I got my G1, I intended to convert it to ir. I would have done it sooner, but I liked the G1 so much with conventional photo I have not converted it and still use my G9 for ir. This thread is particularly relevant to me since I was intending to convert the G1 at some future time with a 665 filter so I am very interested in Jack's conclusions after does further testing.

Jack -- I generally adjust custom white balance by pointing it at sunlight glass nearly every time when I shoot IR. It works for the ir converted filter in my G9.

Howard
http://photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=543585

Mini update:

The sun isn't shining yet, but I did set a new WB of my fog-lit lawn that looks better -- I can actually make greens go light in the B&W, but they're still a bit green in the raw file, not gray. And my R<>B channel swap now generates more like the right kind of false color. Hopefully the sun will be out later and I can try and get a better in cam WB.

Jack Flesher said:

Don, I have not even loaded the GF1 software and so far have only used C1 to convert the raws. Frankly, knowing my lazy-butt self, I would probably not be inclined to even shoot the GF1 if I needed to use another converter. I know it sounds ridiculous, but I just hate using multiple converters. Now thinking I should have converted a Canon...

Click to expand...

Jack - I'm tempted to say "Go big or go home" but I'll refrain.

Give the camera time to settle in. As much as you might hate to do it load the software and at least give it a try. I resisted loading Canon software till I got to the point of why not. The files in C1 looked "okay" the files in CS4 just sucked however I soon found that opening the files in Digital Pro tweaking them some then directly in to ACR solved all my problems; the false colors looked so much better and the black & white as you've seen rocks.

I totally agree with you that it just sucks having to use another program however it's only for one camera.

Don

Don,

Well I broke down and installed the Panny's bundled raw processor, which happened to be a version of silky pix. Those results were disastrous, worse than ACR: noise was horrible and like ACR it cannot accommodate a low enough color temp to subdue the red.

I confirmed the camera is indeed very sensitive to IR -- I viewed my TV remote and activating the remote shows the beam and virtually blows out the display on the converted camera (appears bluish-white though???). Plus the beam cannot be seen at all on my stock body.

As of right now, I am stymied... & :banghead:

Jack Flesher said:

Don,

Well I broke down and installed the Panny's bundled raw processor, which happened to be a version of silky pix. Those results were disastrous, worse than ACR: noise was horrible and like ACR it cannot accommodate a low enough color temp to subdue the red.

I confirmed the camera is indeed very sensitive to IR -- I viewed my TV remote and activating the remote shows the beam and virtually blows out the display on the converted camera (appears bluish-white though???). Plus the beam cannot be seen at all on my stock body.

As of right now, I am stymied... & :banghead:

Click to expand...

Jack--I'm not sure of what the 665 conversion is--may have to check it out, but on my Lifepixel conversion of 10D, I had them do a 'standard'--so that unless I do a custom WB I get a red/magenta file--I can easily get to a false color IR without much problem. I've used an action from Kromagery (Australia) that does it quickly without me having to do all the channel switches--well, it does it for me without effort--and then I can move from there with the adjustment layers it creates. Do you think this is not the right conversion for this camera? I was wondering what Cindy Flood had done for hers--I thought she was doing some false color IR.

Here's the page from Kromagery--this might be of interest to you
http://khromagery.com.au/ir_raw.html

and this page has the link to the action
http://khromagery.com.au/digital_ir.html
Its way down the page under #5 in the false color section.

I don't know if these will be of any help or not, but they do point out the difference in the G1 conversion at the top, and since the GF1 has same sensor, it might give you something to consider.

Diane

Jack, I already determined the IR response and reported it here:

http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11469

from that thread:

I did remove the UV/IR/AA filter stack. I can see in IR very well.

The modified G1 cam:

IR response is about +2 stops (Hoya R72) responsive than the stock G1 (ie., relative to the Visible reading) about -1 with a Heliopan R780 and about -3~4 stops with a Heliopan R1000 filter.

Click to expand...

I have mentioned to Cindy here about the response as well as the efficient IR cut coatings on the m4/3rds lenses.