 |
 | 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 / General Photo Topics / General Topics / December 2005Photographing house with infrared film
Having exhausted other methods of determining where the outer walls of my home are missing insulation, I'm wondering about photographing it from the outside with infrared film (35mm). My idea was to crank up the heat inside for a few hours, use minimal lighting (which I suspect might throw off the results), and then get outside with the camera. It can't be this easy, though, right? Any thoughts on this idea would be appreciated. By the way, current temps here are ranging between 20F and 40F. > Having exhausted other methods of determining where the outer walls of my > home are missing insulation, I'm wondering about photographing it from the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Any thoughts on this idea would be appreciated. By the way, current temps > here are ranging between 20F and 40F. Won't work, film captures near IR (in the 0.7 to 1 micron range), your house will radiate only thermal IR (no shorter then around 5 - 6 microns). Scott >> Having exhausted other methods of determining where the outer walls of my >> home are missing insulation, I'm wondering about photographing it from [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Scott I'm beginning to understand why so many houses aren't insulated correctly. Short of making holes in the walls, there's apparently no good way to determine where heat is escaping. You can hire someone with thermal imaging, usualy 300$ in my area, The thermal cameras I have seen are near 10,000$. Regular film cameras wont work, film is the wrong wavelength. Many digital cameras are IR sensitive but in a range similar to IR film with a 700nm. filter. It would be great if they could be converted or done cheaply , thermal imaging is to expensive. my sony w5 is mildly IR sensitive, I can see it picks up the IR beam on TV remotes and my gas stoves flame looks different. > You can hire someone with thermal imaging, usualy 300$ in my area, The > thermal cameras I have seen are near 10,000$. Regular film cameras wont [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it picks up the IR beam on TV remotes and my gas stoves flame looks > different. Converting the digicam to the longer wavelenghts would require changing the lens (glass or plastic lenses don't transmit the longer IR wavelengths), and the sensor (the sensors in digicams aren't sensitive to the mid-IR light), and the electronics that go with the sensor. You could keep the case, if it is big enough to hold the different components. What you need is a thermographic survey.. This is a technique used to locate 'hotspots' in electrical installations - but can also be applied to insulation checks among other things.... Try a google search for that term.... http://www.irtsurveys.co.uk/ is just one that I found. > Having exhausted other methods of determining where the outer walls of my > home are missing insulation, I'm wondering about photographing it from the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Any thoughts on this idea would be appreciated. By the way, current temps > here are ranging between 20F and 40F. A FLIR camera, with a cryogenicaly cooled sensor is about the only sort of off the shelf imaging system that can do that. Possibly a digigcam that has had the IR block filter removed could also be used for detecting escaping heat. The suroundings would have to be fairly cold (Winter would be the best time to try it), in order to get enough contrast. I haven't tried it, so I just don't know if it would work. from what ive read, IR film captures reflected infrared light, not heat > Having exhausted other methods of determining where the outer walls of my > home are missing insulation, I'm wondering about photographing it from the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Any thoughts on this idea would be appreciated. By the way, current temps > here are ranging between 20F and 40F. > from what ive read, IR film captures reflected infrared light, not heat What you call "heat" is - in this case - light in the near-infrared. And it can be light that is emitted or reflected. In looking for hot spots on a house, from poor insulation, it is the emitted light that matters. >> from what ive read, IR film captures reflected infrared light, not heat > > What you call "heat" is - in this case - light in the near-infrared. > And it can be light that is emitted or reflected. In looking for hot > spots on a house, from poor insulation, it is the emitted light that > matters. I would guess that due to low sensitivity, the IR film would have to used at night during Winter to have the maximum contrast to show up the weakspots in the insulation. My guess is that a digicam with it's IR block filter removed could also be used in the same circumstances for similar results. Maybe a camcorder (or a Sony F828) set to "nightshot" might also work. An el-cheapo low-res digicam can be bought for next to nothing (maybe even a hacked single-use digicam would suffice) and the filter removed after the lens has been unscrewed. > >> from what ive read, IR film captures reflected infrared light, not heat > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > even a hacked single-use digicam would suffice) and the filter removed > after the lens has been unscrewed. You just are not going to see that long of IR, does not matter what time of year or how cold it is. Scott I have a sony with " super nightshot" and its the wrong wave length for heat emissions. > I have a sony with " super nightshot" and its the wrong wave length for > heat emissions. I thought that it would have been worth a go, especialy if your've already got a camcorder with nightshot, or digicam with nightshot (like a Sony F828). No harm in actualy trying, because it won't cost anything (except a few moments standing outside at night, in the cold). If you have tried and it didn't work, perhaps only a FLIR type IR camera with a cryo system would be the way to go. >> I have a sony with " super nightshot" and its the wrong wave length for >> heat emissions. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If you have tried and it didn't work, perhaps only a FLIR type IR camera > with a cryo system would be the way to go. This is all too much. Earlier today, I called a contact in the physics department at R.I.T. Someone must know how to do this. I do use it outside at night often to see animals , and no heat emissions of any structure has ever been evident, the wavelength needed is up around 2-5000 for heat emissions, IR photography around 700nm > I do use it outside at night often to see animals , and no heat > emissions of any structure has ever been evident, the wavelength needed > is up around 2-5000 for heat emissions, IR photography around 700nm Now I (and others who've followed this thread) know what you know about this. Thanks for sharing, after initaily just giving a flat "no, it won't work" type reply with explanation of your actual experiences. I would have tried it myself with my Sony camcorder, but the winters where I am rarely go below 15 degrees Celcius (it is Summer here, and hovers between 28 and 38 degrees) and I wouldn't expect the temp difference between an uninsulated building and the surounding (during winter) to have much contrast, even at night. >> I do use it outside at night often to see animals , and no heat >> emissions of any structure has ever been evident, the wavelength needed [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > difference between an uninsulated building and the surounding (during > winter) to have much contrast, even at night. If you have an AC going, thermal imaging can still be useful. Cool areas in parts of the house would show where insulation is poor. >>> I do use it outside at night often to see animals , and no heat >>> emissions of any structure has ever been evident, the wavelength needed [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If you have an AC going, thermal imaging can still be useful. Cool > areas in parts of the house would show where insulation is poor. What I meant is that I wouldn't expect my camcorder to be able to pick up the contrast, considering the mildness of our Winters and so I don't expect it to work in Summer with the aircon going. Also that habit that most Aussies have of building brick houses would tend to make the idea of in-wall insulation redundant. Perhaps in an area where it gets cold enough to snow, there should be enough contrast for even a relatively insensitive camera could produce a useful thermal image. >>>> I do use it outside at night often to see animals , and no heat >>>> emissions of any structure has ever been evident, the wavelength needed [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > up the contrast, considering the mildness of our Winters and so I don't > expect it to work in Summer with the aircon going. Not only wouldn't it work in your winters, it wouldn't work in an Antarctic winter. > Also that habit that most Aussies have of building brick houses would > tend to make the idea of in-wall insulation redundant. > Perhaps in an area where it gets cold enough to snow, there should be > enough contrast for even a relatively insensitive camera could produce a > useful thermal image. ><snip> >> What I meant is that I wouldn't expect my camcorder to be able to pick [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not only wouldn't it work in your winters, it wouldn't work in an > Antarctic winter. You think, presume or know? Unless you are selling expensive purpose built IR camera gear and trying to disuade an attempt to use what is pretty much "to hand", I suspect that you havn't tried it. So I think that you shouldn't just dissmiss it out of hand, only because you don't believe that it should or would work. If you are so adamant that it won't work and haven't tried it, then you realy do appear foolish. Whatever rows your boat, I suppose. I have taken photos of hot objects (such as hot lightbulbs and bar heaters) with a Dimage 7i (and an IR filter) and they come out okay (not very well resolved/defined, but an image none the less), so I suspect that you are wrong. Not having overly harsh Winters in Sydney realy makes this a moot point for me, but may be of interest to people who live where it snows in the colder months. > ><snip> > >> What I meant is that I wouldn't expect my camcorder to be able to pick [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > for me, but may be of interest to people who live where it snows in the > colder months. Try it if you like but it will not work. At the temperatures that a house, that is not burning down, will be at there will be no light short enough for the camera to pick up. What you would bee looking for is called Black body radiation. At temperatures that are anywhere near what a house will be at there will be no radiation shorter then 1000 nm, which is were a camera would start to become sensitive. You can look at this link that has a number of curves, the curve for 100C shows it going to nothing before the 1000 nm point. Scott <snip> >>I have taken photos of hot objects (such as hot lightbulbs and bar >>heaters) with a Dimage 7i (and an IR filter) and they come out okay (not [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > You can look at this link that has a number of curves, the curve for > 100C shows it going to nothing before the 1000 nm point. Considering that some comercial FLIR type units are basically just a cooled CCD sensor video camera (without an IR block filter) in an expensive motorised gimbal mount, I think that my "backyard" version would do quite alright. If I was going to make a dedicated IR camera, I'd get a cheap digicam. The first thing I'd do is dismantle it, take out the IR blocking filter (usualy described as a "hot" mirror) and replace it with a piece of ordinary glass of the same thickness. If I wanted to (go over-the-top and) get the maximum resolution and contrast, I'd add an active cooler (perhaps based on a Peltier chip) that has a metal "cold finger" touching the back of the image sensor board. That could all be done for a couple of hundred dollars. But, then again, I realy don't have a good application to put a dedicated IR camera to, and so I don't think that I could realy be bothered building it. > Considering that some comercial FLIR type units are basically just a > cooled CCD sensor video camera (without an IR block filter) in an > expensive motorised gimbal mount, I think that my "backyard" version > would do quite alright. Nope, you are quite wrong here, but believe what you will. No matter how you cool the CCD of a digital camera it will not see past 1 micron. Even if it did the glass of the lens will not transmit thermal IR. Cooling a CCD can help reduce darkcurrent, this is done when you are making very long exposures, several minutes to a few hours. There are IR temperature probes that work fairly well, they don't give an image just a temperature, but they only cost around $100 or so. Scott >>Considering that some comercial FLIR type units are basically just a >>cooled CCD sensor video camera (without an IR block filter) in an [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Scott They cost about $50 USD. There is a description of one at http://www.braun.com/na/products/healthwellness/earthermometers/thermoscan.html. >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Whatever rows your boat, I suppose. What "rows my boat"in this case is knowledge of the wavelength range that can be sensed with the kind of detector you are thinking of, and the wavelength range emitted by an object in mild winters, harsh winters, and the coldest winters on earth. The two wavelength ranges don't overlap. > I have taken photos of hot objects (such as hot lightbulbs and bar > heaters) with a Dimage 7i (and an IR filter) and they come out okay (not > very well resolved/defined, but an image none the less), so I suspect > that you are wrong. The objects that you mention put out plenty of radiation in the wavelength you can measure with a digicam type of sensor. Nothing surprising about your results. > Not having overly harsh Winters in Sydney realy makes this a moot point > for me, but may be of interest to people who live where it snows in the > colder months. >>> from what ive read, IR film captures reflected infrared light, not heat >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > My guess is that a digicam with it's IR block filter removed could also > be used in the same circumstances for similar results. There is no light emitted in the wavelengths recorded by a digicam at the temperature of the outide of the house. That is why thermal imaging is done at longer wavelengths. > Maybe a camcorder (or a Sony F828) set to "nightshot" might also work. > An el-cheapo low-res digicam can be bought for next to nothing (maybe > even a hacked single-use digicam would suffice) and the filter removed > after the lens has been unscrewed. What your'e looking for is called "thermal imaging". If you want to measure actual temperatures with the viewer that would be referred to as a "radiometer". The company I work for has handled a line of the old (1970-1980 era) imagers called "Probeye" imagers that were built by Hughes aircraft in the 70s and 80s. We are getting out of the buisness cause there's no more market and these are now obselete. The sensors in the cameras are narrow band, 4 to 7 micron, and very accurate. If you hold your hand on a wall for about 30 seconds and pull it away someone watching through one of these cameras will see the imprint of the heat from your hand on the wall for about 30 seconds after you pull your hand away. Is it expensive? In a word yes. Hire someone to check out the huse, its a LOT cheaper in the long run. > Having exhausted other methods of determining where the outer walls of my > home are missing insulation, I'm wondering about photographing it from the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Any thoughts on this idea would be appreciated. By the way, current temps > here are ranging between 20F and 40F. > What your'e looking for is called "thermal imaging". If you want to > measure [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > you pull your hand away. Is it expensive? In a word yes. > Hire someone to check out the huse, its a LOT cheaper in the long run. Check out the house HOW???? There's no way to see inside the walls, really. Some people say "remove an electrical box". Right. Then repair the plaster... Grumpster Would a Hughes Probeye work on a home to determine thermal imaging heat loss areas with good results. |
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
|
©2008 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.