IR image size
Nov 28, 2013 06:34:18 #
IzzyKap stated in part: "Panasonic Lumix ZS19 with a full spectrum IR conversion"
Little confused, Full Spectra IR Conversion, did you have the UV/IR-Hot-Mirror removed? I did this with My Canon G2 and it works well with the addition of IR filters. My favorite is 750nm the 850nm is OK, but as would be expected the 950nm is a bit dark. (the nm stated is the aprox peak)
I have a Panasonic ZS20 and find it does quite well for IR without conversion. I was quite surprised that it will do a 750nm in about 1 second. I have 650, 850, and 950nm filters; again 950nm very dark and 650nm contains too much visible. 750 and 850nm both do well.
The attached photo was taken with a 950nm filter at ISO 800, 3.3 f, 1 second. No post. 750 & 850nm only required .62 seconds. File size at max quality was 2.25mpx, half the size of yours ... reason ??
Filter (37mm) addition was accomplished using:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-75114-1.html
Little confused, Full Spectra IR Conversion, did you have the UV/IR-Hot-Mirror removed? I did this with My Canon G2 and it works well with the addition of IR filters. My favorite is 750nm the 850nm is OK, but as would be expected the 950nm is a bit dark. (the nm stated is the aprox peak)
I have a Panasonic ZS20 and find it does quite well for IR without conversion. I was quite surprised that it will do a 750nm in about 1 second. I have 650, 850, and 950nm filters; again 950nm very dark and 650nm contains too much visible. 750 and 850nm both do well.
The attached photo was taken with a 950nm filter at ISO 800, 3.3 f, 1 second. No post. 750 & 850nm only required .62 seconds. File size at max quality was 2.25mpx, half the size of yours ... reason ??
Filter (37mm) addition was accomplished using:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-75114-1.html
Nov 28, 2013 07:15:54 #
The attached photo was taken with a 950nm filter at ISO 800, 3.3 f, 1 second. No post. 750 & 850nm only required .62 seconds. File size at max quality was 2.25mpx, half the size of yours ... reason ?? Could be an advantage of conversion. The same shot no filter was 3.5mpx. Looking at another shot of a wooded area gave 5.5mpx size!! humm Well, the JPEG compression evidently differs as would be expected on how many like adjacent pixels there are (grouped).
"file size is dependent on the complexity of the image"
http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/kap/discuss/index.php?p=/discussion/3171/why-does-pixel-size-vary-from-one-photo-to-another/p1
"file size is dependent on the complexity of the image"
http://arch.ced.berkeley.edu/kap/discuss/index.php?p=/discussion/3171/why-does-pixel-size-vary-from-one-photo-to-another/p1
ZS20 WITH 950nm FILTER - NO POSTPROCESSING
Nov 28, 2013 10:10:14 #
IzzyKap wrote:
I've attached one which was obtained with a 720 nm IR filter.
Nice! I played around with IR film a bit, back in the days of the dinosaurs...
Nov 28, 2013 15:11:47 #
IzzyKap wrote:
Recently I've bought Panasonic Lumix ZS19 with a full spectrum IR conversion in order to experiment with IR photography. It's a 14 MP camera but my IR images from it are only around 5 MP at the highest setting. I am confused about this MP discrepancy. Would this be related to IR or is there something wrong with the camera.
There is a big difference in file sizes no matter what the size MP camera is. My canon G10 is 14mp and only gives around the same 5mb file size while my Nikon D3 12mp camera gives way bigger MB files. consumer cameras have smaller sensors and have a certain amount of compression going on hence a lot smaller files.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.