 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2007Infra-red
Do all digital cameras have infra-red filters in front of the sensors? Or to ask it another way, what sort of infra-red photography can you do with a digital camera? Daniele > Do all digital cameras have infra-red filters in front of the sensors? > Or to ask it another way, what sort of infra-red photography can you do > with a digital camera? > > Daniele Look for a Canon 20Da. (dslr) Or a Sony with Nightshot (compact) Good luck >> Do all digital cameras have infra-red filters in front of the sensors? >> Or to ask it another way, what sort of infra-red photography can you do [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Look for a Canon 20Da. (dslr) The Canon 20Da is not an IR camera, they (Canon) modified a 20D to pass H-Alpha wavelengths. Canon’s specifications indicate that the new filter passes 2.5x more light at the H-alpha emission (656nm) than their original EOS 20D. IR starts at over 700nm. >> Do all digital cameras have infra-red filters in front of the sensors? >> Or to ask it another way, what sort of infra-red photography can you do [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Or a Sony with Nightshot (compact) > Good luck Here are some examples of the Sony F717. You can get them real cheap now. Buy the necc. filters and youre ready to go. http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HP3W In article <1hvfcqn.19wcg9sxk9avdN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>, > Do all digital cameras have infra-red filters in front of the sensors? > Or to ask it another way, what sort of infra-red photography can you do > with a digital camera? almost all digicams have infrared cut filters because the sensor is sensitive to infrared, and if the filter wasn't there, the sensor would produce false colors. the leica m8 omitted the infrared cut filter and it was criticized for magenta tinted blacks. they are now providing filters to be used on the front of the lens. fuji just released a camera expressly for infrared and ultraviolet work - the fuji uv/ir. unfortunately, it is not that cheap. nevertheless, it is still possible to shoot infrared even with the ir cut filter that's built in - it just requires much longer exposures (typically an additional 6-8 stops, possibly even more, depending on the camera). you'll need an infrared pass filter (which cuts out visible light), such as the hoya r72. it is also possible to remove the ir cut filter for infrared work, bringing the longer exposures to something more normal. one company that does is: <http://www.lifepixel.com/> additional info: <http://www.naturfotograf.com/irstart.html> You can buy an IR filter to put on the front of your camera. Note that they're dark and that you'll have to frame up your shots ahead of time because you won't be able to see once you put on the filter. Also, exposures will be long even in daylight. Option 2 is what another poster said, which is to modify the sensor such that it receives IR light. You'll be able to shoot normally, being able to look through the lens. All shots will be IR, though. There's no "switch" or anything to turn it off once modified. You might want to buy a cheap, used camera for doing something like that. Kevin On Mar 23, 6:51 am, real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote: > Do all digital cameras have infra-red filters in front of the sensors? > Or to ask it another way, what sort of infra-red photography can you do > with a digital camera? > > Daniele > Option 2 is what another poster said, which is to modify the sensor > such that it receives IR light. You'll be able to shoot normally, > being able to look through the lens. All shots will be IR, though. > There's no "switch" or anything to turn it off once modified. You > might want to buy a cheap, used camera for doing something like that. But cant you then get a lens mounted infa red filter to use when taking normal shots? Yes. Though, you might have to do a custom white balance if the filter doesn't exactly match, color-wise, the filter removed from the sensor. Kevin > > Option 2 is what another poster said, which is to modify the sensor > > such that it receives IR light. You'll be able to shoot normally, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > But cant you then get a lens mounted infa red filter to use when taking > normal shots? Go look at my digital IR section on my main site and see what can be done with both unconverted and converted digital cameras: http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/digitalir/digitalir.php Cheers, Wayne > Do all digital cameras have infra-red filters in front of the sensors? > Or to ask it another way, what sort of infra-red photography can you do > with a digital camera? > > Daniele  SignatureWayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/ > Do all digital cameras have infra-red filters in front of the sensors? > Or to ask it another way, what sort of infra-red photography can you do > with a digital camera? > > Daniele The Pentax *istD ia a good infrared camera with the dark red filter. I know the Pentax *istDL also does infrared and I would expect the *istDS and K100, K110 series would also do infrared. The K10D does not probably due to the antidust coating on the sensor. David McKeand > Do all digital cameras have infra-red filters in front of the sensors? > Or to ask it another way, what sort of infra-red photography can you do > with a digital camera? > > Daniele Just to add Daniele, you can test for infrared capacity by photographing a remote TV controller at close range while holding a button down. If you can see a light in the image all is OK. >> Do all digital cameras have infra-red filters in front of the >> sensors? Or to ask it another way, what sort of infra-red >> photography can you do with a digital camera? Daniele > Just to add Daniele, you can test for infrared capacity by > photographing a remote TV controller at close range while holding a > button down. If you can see a light in the image all is OK. There is not a single digital camera in existence that will not show the IR light from a TV-remote, so this "test" basically show that /all/ digital cameras are IR-capable. This is to some extent true, but sensitivity to IR light vary a lot between models, and this "test" will not tell you what camera is well suited for IR work, and what camera is less suited. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Exactly. If you look at Gisle's tests, or mine of recent cameras: http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/digitalir/digitalir.php you'll find full sun exposure times with unmodified recent digitals that range from 1/30 second to 30 seconds at the same ISO and aperture. I haven't found a digital that could not take an IR picture, even compacts and cell phone cameras. The issue is will it take shots in an exposure range you want and will the noise be low enough to give you a decent image, plus will the lens adequately handle IR without a hotspot or some other effect. Cheers, Wayne Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ Publisher, Experimental Digital Photography http://www.experimentaldigitalphotography.com Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/ >>> Do all digital cameras have infra-red filters in front of the >>> sensors? Or to ask it another way, what sort of infra-red [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > between models, and this "test" will not tell you what camera is well > suited for IR work, and what camera is less suited. : There is not a single digital camera in existence that will : not show the IR light from a TV-remote, ... What does the IR source look like in the image? Bob >> There is not a single digital camera in existence that will >> not show the IR light from a TV-remote, ... > What does the IR source look like in the image? Like a white specular highlight. Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ According to D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>: > Do all digital cameras have infra-red filters in front of the sensors? Well ... the Kodak NC2000e/c (a conversion of the film Nikon N90s) does not have an IR filter in front of the sensor, so you have to use "Hot Mirror" filters to avoid some images coming out really weird. > Or to ask it another way, what sort of infra-red photography can you do > with a digital camera? Well ... get an older digital SLR and modify it. A web search will show instructions on modifying at least some of the digital SLRs. (I know for sure that the instructions are out there for the Nikon D70 (now obsolete), and since I have not owned the other maker's cameras, I did not bother looking it up. However -- if you don't want to do this, you can get an IR pass filter (you'll need that one anyway to block the visible light) and go for really *long* exposures -- since the IR block filter in the camera is not perfect -- you just have to hit it on the head for a while with photons to eventually get it to take. If I wanted to do IR, and the fairly low resolution of the NC2000e/c was not sufficient, I would pick up a spare D70 or D70s and modify it, keeping my current one as a visible light camera -- at least until I can afford a D200 or the like. Good Luck, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- : According to D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>: : > Do all digital cameras have infra-red filters in front of the sensors? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] : (now obsolete), and since I have not owned the other maker's cameras, I : did not bother looking it up. Mightn't it make more sense to modify an old rangefinder camera instead of an SLR? That would help you compensate for the problem of not being able to see through the visible-light filter on the lens. (It leaves all the other problems, of course, including one that nobody has mentioned yet: a visible-light lens doesn't do a good job of placing an IR image at the focal plane.) I suspect that a lot of DSLR users have a rangefinder camera (mine is a Canon G-5) lying around from before they upgraded. And at the risk of wandering slightly off-topic How do aerial photographers get the "false color" pictures that combine both visible light and IR, with the resulting frequency range mapped onto the visible spectrum? The obvious answer is to leave off the visible-light filter on a camera with an IR-capable sensor. But then you'd be out of focus at one end of the range, wouldn't you? Or do they start with two images, one produced with visible light and one with IR? Bob > Mightn't it make more sense to modify an old rangefinder camera > instead of an SLR? That would help you compensate for the problem of > not being able to see through the visible-light filter on the lens. It is not a problem. On a modified camera the filter is located on the sensor and one does not look through it. > (It leaves all the other problems, of course, including one that > nobody has mentioned yet: a visible-light lens doesn't do a good job > of placing an IR image at the focal plane.) ...Therefore this is not a problem either. SignatureMatti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm> According to Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM>: [ ... ] > : Well ... get an older digital SLR and modify it. A web search > : will show instructions on modifying at least some of the digital SLRs. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Mightn't it make more sense to modify an old rangefinder camera instead of an > SLR? Do you *have* a *digital* rangefinder? If so, then yes. > That would help you compensate for the problem of not being able to see > through the visible-light filter on the lens. (It leaves all the other > problems, of course, including one that nobody has mentioned yet: a > visible-light lens doesn't do a good job of placing an IR image at the focal > plane.) Many lenses used to have a little red index mark to the side of the normal white focus index mark. Focus using visible light and then move whatever point on the distance scale is opposite the white index to be opposite the red index. Obviously, autofocus lenses have different problems, and many of today's lenses shift focus as you zoom. (Though a so-called "prime" (single focal length) lens would probably be the better choice for near IR work. > I suspect that a lot of DSLR users have a rangefinder camera (mine is > a Canon G-5) lying around from before they upgraded. And is this a digital camera, or a film camera? > And at the risk of wandering slightly off-topic … > How do aerial photographers get the "false color" pictures that combine both > visible light and IR, with the resulting frequency range mapped onto the > visible spectrum? There used to be an infrared Ektachrome film -- the red-sensitive layer was replaced with an IR-sensitive layer, and a filter was used which blocked the visible red but not the IR. Otherwise, if you are talking digital (which you should be in this newsgroup), you take two consecutive shots -- one with an IR blocking filter and the other with an IR-pass filter, and combine them in the computer. Obviously, the closer together in time that they are taken, the better the combination. > The obvious answer is to leave off the visible-light filter > on a camera with an IR-capable sensor. But then you'd be out of focus at one > end of the range, wouldn't you? Or do they start with two images, one produced > with visible light and one with IR? It probably depends. Note that I have worked with IR-*only* lenses. They were totally opaque to visible light. But the sensors had to be cooled to liquid nitrogen temperatures, and they worked in the *far* IR. Body heat was easily visible, including hot handprints from a few seconds contact with a note pad. A person's moustache would change "color" depending on whether they were inhaling (cool), or exhaling (hot). The lenses were (had to be) made of silicon and germanium, not glass. Note that near IR can produce interesting effects when you are photographing someone with a light synthetic fabric as clothing. It appears nearly transparent. I've seen this effect on a video camera with an IR-sensitive videcon. Enjoy, DoN. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- : According to Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM>: : [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] : : And is this a digital camera, or a film camera? Digital. Come to think of it, I may have an Argus C3 and one or two old Minoltas tucked away somewhere as well. Those *are* film cameras. Bob > Mightn't it make more sense to modify an old rangefinder camera instead of an > SLR? That would help you compensate for the problem of not being able to see [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > on a camera with an IR-capable sensor. But then you'd be out of focus at one > end of the range, wouldn't you? Answering both of your questions at once, traditional false-color infrared is done with film that is sensitive to IR as well as visible light. Many apochromatic lenses focus pretty well in infrared as well as visible, so the focus is not as much of an issue as you'd expect. I routinely used Kodak HIE infrared film in a modified Olympus SLR that had an IR filter between the film rails. I focused using visible light, the images were made with IR light, but focus worked fine at most focal lengths if I stopped down to increase depth of field. Signaturejosh@phred.org is Joshua Putnam <http://www.phred.org/~josh/> Braze your own bicycle frames. See <http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html> > Do all digital cameras have infra-red filters in front of the sensors? > Or to ask it another way, what sort of infra-red photography can you do > with a digital camera? > > Daniele dependent on the camera, can't rember what camera you plumped for in the end, point a remote at the camera and if it picks up any thing you have a chance. if you have filters it can work. its not as punchy as the old monochrome but it is a fun, i have a D30 which with a filter is fun. roger > Do all digital cameras have infra-red filters in front of the sensors? > Or to ask it another way, what sort of infra-red photography can you do > with a digital camera? > > Daniele The Sigma SD10 and SD14 have the infrared filter on the dust protector. On the SD10, remove the screw that anchors the dust protector and in about a minute, you've got an infra-red DSLR. On the SD14, you can lift the dust protector off (it's not held on by any screws) in seconds and you're ready. > > Do all digital cameras have infra-red filters in front of the sensors? > > Or to ask it another way, what sort of infra-red photography can you do [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > minute, you've got an infra-red DSLR. On the SD14, you can lift the dust > protector off (it's not held on by any screws) in seconds and you're ready. while a user removable infrared filter is handy, the sigma cameras are not without their share of problems. buying something like a nikon d50 or canon 350d and having the infrared cut filter removed would cost about half of what an sd14 does, and it is a far better solution for infrared work. another possibilty is to modify a point&shoot digicam. liveview on the lcd makes infrared a lot easier than with an dslr. and it's very cheap. > Do all digital cameras have infra-red filters in front of the sensors? > Or to ask it another way, what sort of infra-red photography can you do > with a digital camera? I understand that early models of the Minolta long-zoom electronic viewfinder cameras, specifically the DiMAGE 5 and 7, did not have effective infrared filters and so are good for infrared photography. Later models such as the 7i and 7Hi, etc., do filter out the IR and so are not as useful for this. I have a DiMAGE 5 myself but have never tried IR with it, so cannot speak from experience. But cameras of this type I should think would be better for this purpose than any SLRs, since you'd be able to see what you were doing in the electronic viewfinder or LCD monitor, which you wouldn't be able to do with an SLR and an IR filter that cut out all visible light. Such cameras must turn up on eBay fairly often. Neil > Do all digital cameras have infra-red filters in front of the > sensors? Most have IR-blocking filters (hot mirrors). Usually use the term "infra-red filter" to refer to IR-pass filters. There are exceptions, such as the Kodak DCS-460-series, and in particular the (very rare) DCS 460ir, Also, the Sigma SD10 and SD14 has ir-blocking filters that can be removed in the field. > Or to ask it another way, what sort of infra-red photography can you > do with a digital camera? Even with a filter, most digitals cameras are capable of IR-light photography. For more info, please see: http://hannemyr.com/photo/ir.html Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://hannemyr.com/photo/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sigma SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.