| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
|
Funky IR Artefact
Trée arty but... WTF is it???
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/mjfnh2d0s1wulli/i180422%2311638.jpg For the record: I used a IR filter on a unconverted EOS M with high ISO settings. Hard to work without an OVF, witch I have... -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-22 09:40:26 +0000, android said:
Trée arty but... WTF is it??? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/mjfnh2d0s1wulli/i180422%2311638.jpg For the record: I used a IR filter on a unconverted EOS M with high ISO settings. Hard to work without an OVF, witch I have... I've done a quick and dirty post preview so you can see where this kind of files takes you. Since this one is broken I' ve put little effort in it and just made some minor adjustments in Preview.app: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/u9sd82puvllgvjv/i180422%2311638.bw.jpg -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-22 18:53:51 +0000, RichA said:
On Sunday, 22 April 2018 05:40:30 UTC-4, android wrote: Trée arty but... WTF is it??? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/mjfnh2d0s1wulli/i180422%2311638.jpg For the record: I used a IR filter on a unconverted EOS M with high ISO settings. Hard to work without an OVF, witch I have... -- teleportation kills I tend to use a Leica viewfinder in the hotshoe, a wide angle lens set to f/8 so proximity focus is easy. A mild IR filter (cutoff, around 800nm on a camera with its IR filter removed can easily be handheld in daylight or even overcast, but a deep IR cutoff (1000+nm) means using a tripod. A camera with the IR sensor filter in-place is a pain, cutting out so much of the IR than any exposures with an IR filter over the lens means seconds of time. I've got a 760nm totally black filter, so there is an overlapping gap between the high end of the visible spectrum and low end of the IR one and that can be used at high ISOs sunny days. If you got steady hands, there is another example from a few years ago in the gallery on my blog. https://wp.me/P3strj-7Y I've gotten it down to where I can convert an old Nikon D70 (the easiest camera to convert) in 15 minutes. I might just pull the the filter stack out of the EOS M eventually. Can't be that difficult... -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-23 10:33:47 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
On Sunday, 22 April 2018 10:40:30 UTC+1, android wrote: Trée arty but... WTF is it??? looks like curtians blowing in the wind through a partially opened window , and the bright bit is sunlight on a wall. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/mjfnh2d0s1wulli/i180422%2311638.jpg For the record: I used a IR filter on a unconverted EOS M with high ISO settings. Hard to work without an OVF, witch I have... -- teleportation kills If it;s unconverted yuo;re not seeing much infra red if any. It;s just the red end of the visible light your recording nothing else. You are dead wrong yet again. The filter cuts of at 760nm, it's a "black" filter you see and the frequencies below is pure IR: "IR wavelengths extend from the nominal red edge of the visible spectrum at 700 nanometers (frequency 430*THz), to 1*millimeter" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
On 4/22/2018 5:40 AM, android wrote:
Trée arty but... WTF is it??? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/mjfnh2d0s1wulli/i180422%2311638.jpg For the record: I used a IR filter on a unconverted EOS M with high ISO settings. Hard to work without an OVF, witch I have... Did a quick and dirty post, (surface blur and increased fog a bit,) just to get rid of most of the artifacts. https://www.dropbox.com/s/97ubvg4wj71xn2d/i180422%2311638.jpg?dl=0 -- PeterN |
Funky IR Artefact
On 4/23/2018 1:34 AM, android wrote:
On 2018-04-22 18:53:51 +0000, RichA said: On Sunday, 22 April 2018 05:40:30 UTC-4, androidÂ* wrote: Trée arty but... WTF is it??? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/mjfnh2d0s1wulli/i180422%2311638.jpg For the record: I used a IR filter on a unconverted EOS M with high ISO settings. Hard to work without an OVF, witch I have... -- teleportation kills I tend to use a Leica viewfinder in the hotshoe, a wide angle lens set to f/8 so proximity focus is easy.Â* A mild IR filter (cutoff, around 800nm on a camera with its IR filter removed can easily be handheld in daylight or even overcast, but a deep IR cutoff (1000+nm) means using a tripod.Â* A camera with the IR sensor filter in-place is a pain, cutting out so much of the IR than any exposures with an IR filter over the lens means seconds of time. I've got a 760nm totally black filter, so there is an overlapping gap between the high end of the visible spectrum and low end of the IR one and that can be used at high ISOs sunny days. If you got steady hands, there is another example from a few years ago in the gallery on my blog. https://wp.me/P3strj-7Y I've gotten it down to where I can convert an old Nikon D70 (the easiest camera to convert) in 15 minutes. I might just pull the the filter stack out of the EOS M eventually. Can't be that difficult... You might lose autofocuse. The near IR light has a different wavelength. -- PeterN |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-24 09:04:39 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
Yes probably why it's a little out of focus especailly at f2. What artifacts did you remove ?, the coffee/tea pot was still there and a couple of jars and a lamp shade and yuo changed the colour from infra-RED to monochrome, unless it's red he won't believe it's infra-red. ;-D I posted the file to see if the artefact could be identified... You don't know what IR is but would have if you had read the material that I linked for you. :-ppp -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-23 17:29:56 +0000, PeterN said:
On 4/23/2018 1:34 AM, android wrote: On 2018-04-22 18:53:51 +0000, RichA said: On Sunday, 22 April 2018 05:40:30 UTC-4, android* wrote: Trée arty but... WTF is it??? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/mjfnh2d0s1wulli/i180422%2311638.jpg For the record: I used a IR filter on a unconverted EOS M with high ISO settings. Hard to work without an OVF, witch I have... -- teleportation kills I tend to use a Leica viewfinder in the hotshoe, a wide angle lens set to f/8 so proximity focus is easy.* A mild IR filter (cutoff, around 800nm on a camera with its IR filter removed can easily be handheld in daylight or even overcast, but a deep IR cutoff (1000+nm) means using a tripod.* A camera with the IR sensor filter in-place is a pain, cutting out so much of the IR than any exposures with an IR filter over the lens means seconds of time. I've got a 760nm totally black filter, so there is an overlapping gap between the high end of the visible spectrum and low end of the IR one and that can be used at high ISOs sunny days. If you got steady hands, there is another example from a few years ago in the gallery on my blog. https://wp.me/P3strj-7Y I've gotten it down to where I can convert an old Nikon D70 (the easiest camera to convert) in 15 minutes. I might just pull the the filter stack out of the EOS M eventually. Can't be that difficult... You might lose autofocuse. The near IR light has a different wavelength. On a mirrorless? Don't think soo... -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-23 17:25:54 +0000, PeterN said:
On 4/22/2018 5:40 AM, android wrote: Trée arty but... WTF is it??? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/mjfnh2d0s1wulli/i180422%2311638.jpg For the record: I used a IR filter on a unconverted EOS M with high ISO settings. Hard to work without an OVF, witch I have... Did a quick and dirty post, (surface blur and increased fog a bit,) just to get rid of most of the artifacts. https://www.dropbox.com/s/97ubvg4wj71xn2d/i180422%2311638.jpg?dl=0 I did a q n d myself in a follow up to the OP. The file is broken so I did not take it any further... The white streak to the left is that what puzzles me. Do you know what it is? -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-25 09:13:23 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 17:16:49 UTC+1, android wrote: On 2018-04-24 09:04:39 +0000, Whisky-dave said: Yes probably why it's a little out of focus especailly at f2. What artifacts did you remove ?, the coffee/tea pot was still there and a couple of jars and a lamp shade and yuo changed the colour from infra-RED to monochrome, unless it's red he won't believe it's infra-red. ;-D I posted the file to see if the artefact could be identified... SO where exactly was this artifact in the picture ? You don't see it? Read my reply to PeterN then... You don't know what IR is. I do you don't. You wouldn't emberass you family by posting crap like this if you did, and had some common sense... but would have if you had read the material that I linked for you. :-ppp -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-25 09:14:56 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 17:16:50 UTC+1, android wrote: On 2018-04-23 17:29:56 +0000, PeterN said: On 4/23/2018 1:34 AM, android wrote: [---] I might just pull the the filter stack out of the EOS M eventually. Can't be that difficult... You might lose autofocuse. The near IR light has a different wavelength. On a mirrorless? Don't think soo... Yes yuo don;t think so..... It's the lens that focuses the light whether it's visable, ultraviolet or infra-red. You won't lose AF since it's integrated with the capture sensor... -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-25 11:32:40 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 11:05:03 UTC+1, android wrote: On 2018-04-25 09:14:56 +0000, Whisky-dave said: On Tuesday, 24 April 2018 17:16:50 UTC+1, android wrote: On 2018-04-23 17:29:56 +0000, PeterN said: On 4/23/2018 1:34 AM, android wrote: [---] I might just pull the the filter stack out of the EOS M eventually. Can't be that difficult... You might lose autofocuse. The near IR light has a different wavelength. On a mirrorless? Don't think soo... Yes yuo don;t think so..... It's the lens that focuses the light whether it's visable, ultraviolet or infra-red. You won't lose AF since it's integrated with the capture sensor... do you even know what AF is let alone what IR is ? https://photo.stackexchange.com/ques...d-for-focusing Did you read that article? A mirrorless ain't a DSLR... -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-25 11:31:01 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
How can you take an IR photograph while yuor camera has an IR filter to cut out IR from getting to the sensor. Do some thinking... -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 05:32:11 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote: On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 13:07:56 UTC+1, android wrote: On 2018-04-25 11:31:01 +0000, Whisky-dave said: How can you take an IR photograph while yuor camera has an IR filter to cut out IR from getting to the sensor. Do some thinking... come on then tell me how IR gets through the lens to the camera sensor and through the IR filter that is on the sensor so it doesn't reposnd to IR 'light' All he has to do is travel towards the subject at a speed sufficiently high to shift the IR into the visible part of the spectrum. He will need to use a high shutter speed. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-26 03:28:01 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
All he has to do is travel towards the subject at a speed sufficiently high to shift the IR into the visible part of the spectrum. He will need to use a high shutter speed. Focusing with a mirrorless is like focusing a view camera using the ground glass since the AF sensors are embedded in the capture one. The same goes for MF shooting too, of course since that what you see through the EVF or Lieve View is that that is captured by the sensor. C'mon, you know better than trying to support Dense Dave on this... -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 05:38:56 +0200, android wrote:
On 2018-04-26 03:28:01 +0000, Eric Stevens said: All he has to do is travel towards the subject at a speed sufficiently high to shift the IR into the visible part of the spectrum. He will need to use a high shutter speed. Focusing with a mirrorless is like focusing a view camera using the ground glass since the AF sensors are embedded in the capture one. The same goes for MF shooting too, of course since that what you see through the EVF or Lieve View is that that is captured by the sensor. C'mon, you know better than trying to support Dense Dave on this... I hadn't followed this to the point where I had picked up that it was a mirrorless camera. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-26 08:58:38 +0000, Eric Stevens said:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 05:38:56 +0200, android wrote: On 2018-04-26 03:28:01 +0000, Eric Stevens said: All he has to do is travel towards the subject at a speed sufficiently high to shift the IR into the visible part of the spectrum. He will need to use a high shutter speed. Focusing with a mirrorless is like focusing a view camera using the ground glass since the AF sensors are embedded in the capture one. The same goes for MF shooting too, of course since that what you see through the EVF or Lieve View is that that is captured by the sensor. C'mon, you know better than trying to support Dense Dave on this... I hadn't followed this to the point where I had picked up that it was a mirrorless camera. The EOS M series are mirrorless. I have an original M, Dense Dave has a M3 and Davoud a M5, for example.... In live view it's strictly WYSIWYG. The light level geting to the sensor is too low for AF though while using the gap between the IR cut of filter in camera and the screw on one that cuts of visible light, 760nm in my case. A converted camera should be able to use AF, if the conversion can be done without damaging it, I e double pixel AF sensors. The live view, in any camera will make the rear pannel, or EVF to work like ground glass and thus correctly show actual focus. -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-26 09:08:41 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
ya thick ****er. Oki... -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-26 11:35:43 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
????? which of the canon M series has double pixel AF sensors. ? The M5. It's also called Dual Pixel Autofocus, DPAF. http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2017/intro-to-dual-pixel-autofocus.shtml -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: Focusing with a mirrorless Cameras don't use the mirrors to focus the image, slrs have a secondary mirror behind the main mirror for the autofocus system to work, which has its own sensor. mirrorless focus using the main sensor. |
Funky IR Artefact
On Thu, 26 Apr 2018 02:05:37 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote: On Thursday, 26 April 2018 04:28:03 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 05:32:11 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave wrote: On Wednesday, 25 April 2018 13:07:56 UTC+1, android wrote: On 2018-04-25 11:31:01 +0000, Whisky-dave said: How can you take an IR photograph while yuor camera has an IR filter to cut out IR from getting to the sensor. Do some thinking... come on then tell me how IR gets through the lens to the camera sensor and through the IR filter that is on the sensor so it doesn't reposnd to IR 'light' All he has to do is travel towards the subject at a speed sufficiently high to shift the IR into the visible part of the spectrum. He'll get that wrong too, he'll travel so fast it'll get into the UV specrum and he;'ll annoucnce that the universe has disapeared because he canlt see it. He will need to use a high shutter speed. That's the least of his problems. :) Not unless he wants to take the image before he crashes into the subject. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Funky IR Artefact
On 4/24/2018 12:16 PM, android wrote:
On 2018-04-23 17:29:56 +0000, PeterN said: On 4/23/2018 1:34 AM, android wrote: On 2018-04-22 18:53:51 +0000, RichA said: On Sunday, 22 April 2018 05:40:30 UTC-4, androidÂ* wrote: Trée arty but... WTF is it??? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/mjfnh2d0s1wulli/i180422%2311638.jpg For the record: I used a IR filter on a unconverted EOS M with high ISO settings. Hard to work without an OVF, witch I have... -- teleportation kills I tend to use a Leica viewfinder in the hotshoe, a wide angle lens set to f/8 so proximity focus is easy.Â* A mild IR filter (cutoff, around 800nm on a camera with its IR filter removed can easily be handheld in daylight or even overcast, but a deep IR cutoff (1000+nm) means using a tripod.Â* A camera with the IR sensor filter in-place is a pain, cutting out so much of the IR than any exposures with an IR filter over the lens means seconds of time. I've got a 760nm totally black filter, so there is an overlapping gap between the high end of the visible spectrum and low end of the IR one and that can be used at high ISOs sunny days. If you got steady hands, there is another example from a few years ago in the gallery on my blog. https://wp.me/P3strj-7Y I've gotten it down to where I can convert an old Nikon D70 (the easiest camera to convert) in 15 minutes. I might just pull the the filter stack out of the EOS M eventually. Can't be that difficult... You might lose autofocuse. The near IR light has a different wavelength. On a mirrorless? Don't think soo... You may be right. I had the IR filter pulled on my P&S, and did not lose autofocus. It may depend on the size of your sensor. According to articles I've read, you lose AF if you try that on a full frame. -- PeterN |
Funky IR Artefact
On 4/24/2018 12:16 PM, android wrote:
On 2018-04-23 17:25:54 +0000, PeterN said: On 4/22/2018 5:40 AM, android wrote: Trée arty but... WTF is it??? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/mjfnh2d0s1wulli/i180422%2311638.jpg For the record: I used a IR filter on a unconverted EOS M with high ISO settings. Hard to work without an OVF, witch I have... Did a quick and dirty post, (surface blur and increased fog a bit,) just to get rid of most of the artifacts. https://www.dropbox.com/s/97ubvg4wj71xn2d/i180422%2311638.jpg?dl=0 I did a q n d myself in a follow up to the OP. The file is broken so I did not take it any further... The white streak to the left is that what puzzles me. Do you know what it is? if you're talking about the curved line, I think it's the edge of a curtain, that is OOF. -- PeterN |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-27 02:11:45 +0000, PeterN said:
On 4/24/2018 12:16 PM, android wrote: On 2018-04-23 17:29:56 +0000, PeterN said: On 4/23/2018 1:34 AM, android wrote: On 2018-04-22 18:53:51 +0000, RichA said: On Sunday, 22 April 2018 05:40:30 UTC-4, android* wrote: Trée arty but... WTF is it??? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/mjfnh2d0s1wulli/i180422%2311638.jpg For the record: I used a IR filter on a unconverted EOS M with high ISO settings. Hard to work without an OVF, witch I have... -- teleportation kills I tend to use a Leica viewfinder in the hotshoe, a wide angle lens set to f/8 so proximity focus is easy.* A mild IR filter (cutoff, around 800nm on a camera with its IR filter removed can easily be handheld in daylight or even overcast, but a deep IR cutoff (1000+nm) means using a tripod.* A camera with the IR sensor filter in-place is a pain, cutting out so much of the IR than any exposures with an IR filter over the lens means seconds of time. I've got a 760nm totally black filter, so there is an overlapping gap between the high end of the visible spectrum and low end of the IR one and that can be used at high ISOs sunny days. If you got steady hands, there is another example from a few years ago in the gallery on my blog. https://wp.me/P3strj-7Y I've gotten it down to where I can convert an old Nikon D70 (the easiest camera to convert) in 15 minutes. I might just pull the the filter stack out of the EOS M eventually. Can't be that difficult... You might lose autofocuse. The near IR light has a different wavelength. On a mirrorless? Don't think soo... You may be right. I had the IR filter pulled on my P&S, and did not lose autofocus. It may depend on the size of your sensor. According to articles I've read, you lose AF if you try that on a full frame. We are talking mirrorless here... -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-27 02:15:34 +0000, PeterN said:
On 4/24/2018 12:16 PM, android wrote: On 2018-04-23 17:25:54 +0000, PeterN said: On 4/22/2018 5:40 AM, android wrote: Trée arty but... WTF is it??? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/mjfnh2d0s1wulli/i180422%2311638.jpg For the record: I used a IR filter on a unconverted EOS M with high ISO settings. Hard to work without an OVF, witch I have... Did a quick and dirty post, (surface blur and increased fog a bit,) just to get rid of most of the artifacts. https://www.dropbox.com/s/97ubvg4wj71xn2d/i180422%2311638.jpg?dl=0 I did a q n d myself in a follow up to the OP. The file is broken so I did not take it any further... The white streak to the left is that what puzzles me. Do you know what it is? if you're talking about the curved line, I think it's the edge of a curtain, that is OOF. No. I have files taken att the same time and it's not there. Probably a hot spot with floded photon wells with the surplus photons following gravity... -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-27 10:24:51 +0000, Whisky-dave, AKA Dense Dave said:
Well that certainly is funny, are you sure it's not microscopic aliens No, it's photonics lemmings... -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: Focusing with a mirrorless Cameras don't use the mirrors to focus the image, slrs have a secondary mirror behind the main mirror for the autofocus system to work, which has its own sensor. mirrorless focus using the main sensor. Really, when I focus my M3 I use the focusing ring on the lens for manual focus. whooooooosh. |
Funky IR Artefact
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: Focusing with a mirrorless Cameras don't use the mirrors to focus the image, slrs have a secondary mirror behind the main mirror for the autofocus system to work, which has its own sensor. mirrorless focus using the main sensor. Really, when I focus my M3 I use the focusing ring on the lens for manual focus. whooooooosh. Gone right over yuor head hasn;t it, why do they but IR markings on lenes and this gose back well before mirrorless are yuo really climing that IR light focussess differntly for mirrorless cameras ? whoooooosh even higher. plus, modern lenses don't have ir markers anymore. |
Funky IR Artefact
On Apr 27, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ): Gone right over yuor head hasn;t it, why do they but IR markings on lenes and this gose back well before mirrorless are yuo really climing that IR light focussess differntly for mirrorless cameras ? Yes. Mirrorless cameras have the ability to AF IR light without focusing issues found in DSLRs. Typically with IR converted DSLRs camera/lens combos have to be calibrated, not so with mirrorless. With mirrorless cameras AF happens via the sensor, and you get a realtime preview of the image before capture in either the EVF and on LCD. Here is one photographer's experience. https://neilvn.com/tangents/mirrorless-cameras-and-bw-infrared-photography/ -- Regards, Savageduck |
Funky IR Artefact
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: Focusing with a mirrorless Cameras don't use the mirrors to focus the image, slrs have a secondary mirror behind the main mirror for the autofocus system to work, which has its own sensor. mirrorless focus using the main sensor. Really, when I focus my M3 I use the focusing ring on the lens for manual focus. whooooooosh. Gone right over yuor head hasn;t it, why do they but IR markings on lenes and this gose back well before mirrorless are yuo really climing that IR light focussess differntly for mirrorless cameras ? whoooooosh even higher. plus, modern lenses don't have ir markers anymore. So WTF has that got to do with it. IR works in the same way it has done since the big bang whether or not lenes have a mark on them is irrelivant. what you fail to understand is that a mirrorless camera focuses off the actual sensor, while slr has a *separate* focus module. in other words, with mirrorless, what you see is what you get. lens markings do not matter. different wavelengths do not matter. if it's in focus in the viewfinder or on the rear display, it will be in focus on the actual photo. always. with an slr, the focus module is separate, using a secondary mirror behind the main mirror to reflect light to the focus sensor module. it is calibrated for visible light, so for infrared, either you adjust for the difference (using lens markings) or the focus system needs to be recalibrated for infrared. |
Funky IR Artefact
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: Mirrorless cameras have the ability to AF IR light without focusing issues found in DSLRs. Typically with IR converted DSLRs camera/lens combos have to be calibrated, not so with mirrorless. That is ONLY true if ONLY IR light is falling on the sensor. it's true no matter what light type of light is. |
Funky IR Artefact
On Apr 27, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ): On Friday, 27 April 2018 15:23:32 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote: On Apr 27, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote (in ): Gone right over yuor head hasn;t it, why do they but IR markings on lenes and this gose back well before mirrorless are yuo really climing that IR light focussess differntly for mirrorless cameras ? Yes. So you're saying that all light focuses at the same point through a lens irrespective of it's wavelengh ? Amazing isn’t it. What we are saying is DSLRs and mirrorless cameras go about focusing for full spectrum light, including IR very differently. Mirrorless cameras have the ability to AF IR light without focusing issues found in DSLRs. Typically with IR converted DSLRs camera/lens combos have to be calibrated, not so with mirrorless. That is ONLY true if ONLY IR light is falling on the sensor. Strangely enough with mirrorless cameras all light, including IR, passing through the lens falls on the sensor. With mirrorless cameras AF happens via the sensor, and you get a realtime preview of the image before capture in either the EVF and on LCD. SO tell me why andriods IR picture is so OOF . Beats me! You would have to check with android on that. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/...22%2311638.jpg I still DO NOT believe this is an IR image. It is an image captured with an IR filter on the lens he used. Here is one photographer's experience. https://neilvn.com/tangents/mirrorle...d-photography/ So to Lifepixel.com (the premier IR conversion service) all micro four thirds lenses will focus perfectly with infrared light, and that has been my experience as well. They actually recommend mirco four thirds cameras as the best choice for infrared Actually they say that mirrorless cameras, M4/3, APS-C, or FF will be a better choice for IR than a DSLR, and they reccommend a full spectrum conversion to use together with appropriate filters. so what's special about mirco four thirds ? Nothing. then there's this "Note that most IR conversion services will require a lens to calibrate the focus." That is in reference to DSLRs. However, in some cases such as with the Nikon D70 + old Nikkor 18-70mm it is not necessary due to dumb luck. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-27 14:54:49 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
SO tell me why andriods IR picture is so OOF . It was that file in a series that contained that special artefact. I was testing settings and focus was a non issue. We have now established that the artefact was photonic lemmings so lets move on... -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-27 14:54:49 +0000, Whisky-dave said:
SO tell me why andriods IR picture is so OOF . It was that file in a series that contained that special artefact. I was testing exposure settings and focus was a non issue. We have now established that the artefact was photonic lemmings so lets move on... -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
On Apr 27, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ): On Friday, 27 April 2018 15:57:36 UTC+1, nospam wrote: In , Whisky-dave wrote: Mirrorless cameras have the ability to AF IR light without focusing issues found in DSLRs. Typically with IR converted DSLRs camera/lens combos have to be calibrated, not so with mirrorless. That is ONLY true if ONLY IR light is falling on the sensor. it's true no matter what light type of light is. IR is NOT falling on his sensor because he has a filter over it ! The filter he is using excludes all light other than IR. So IR is hitting his sensor. -- Regards, Savageduck |
Funky IR Artefact
In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote: Focusing with a mirrorless Cameras don't use the mirrors to focus the image, slrs have a secondary mirror behind the main mirror for the autofocus system to work, which has its own sensor. mirrorless focus using the main sensor. Really, when I focus my M3 I use the focusing ring on the lens for manual focus. whooooooosh. Gone right over yuor head hasn;t it, why do they but IR markings on lenes and this gose back well before mirrorless are yuo really climing that IR light focussess differntly for mirrorless cameras ? whoooooosh even higher. plus, modern lenses don't have ir markers anymore. So WTF has that got to do with it. IR works in the same way it has done since the big bang whether or not lenes have a mark on them is irrelivant. what you fail to understand is that a mirrorless camera focuses off the actual sensor, while slr has a *separate* focus module. what you have failed to notice is that he still hads the IR filter over the sensor so there is very little IR getting to the sensor to focus on. The sensor will focus on whatever light is shown on it, but NOT if teh IR filter filers out the IR then the lens won;t focus on the IR. whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh. |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-27 16:00:51 +0000, Savageduck said:
On Apr 27, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote (in ): On Friday, 27 April 2018 15:57:36 UTC+1, nospam wrote: In , Whisky-dave wrote: Mirrorless cameras have the ability to AF IR light without focusing issues found in DSLRs. Typically with IR converted DSLRs camera/lens combos have to be calibrated, not so with mirrorless. That is ONLY true if ONLY IR light is falling on the sensor. it's true no matter what light type of light is. IR is NOT falling on his sensor because he has a filter over it ! The filter he is using excludes all light other than IR. So IR is hitting his sensor. A QND from the archives: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/pccrx8oy5yelhac/i150626%236264.png -- teleportation kills |
Funky IR Artefact
On Apr 27, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote
(in ): On Friday, 27 April 2018 16:27:29 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote: Snip or dumb users or those that don;t care. would you say IR focussing matters on a lens of focal lenght 22mmm on a APSC sensor I wouldn't worry until I was apporaching 100mm then someone that knew what they wwre doing might notice. Sigh... To illustrate my point, here is a shot taken a few minutes ago with my X-T2 + XF35mm f/1.4 and a Hoya Infrared [R72] filter. ISO200, 1.9sec @ f/5.8. No calibration involved, scene was visible (though very red) in EVF and on LCD, focusing was not a problem. Processed quite quickly in LR Classic CC. https://www.dropbox.com/s/nb80vab1s6ptbqx/screenshot_301.png -- Regards, Savageduck |
Funky IR Artefact
On Apr 27, 2018, Savageduck wrote
(in iganews.com): On Apr 27, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote (in ): On Friday, 27 April 2018 16:27:29 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote: Snip or dumb users or those that don;t care. would you say IR focussing matters on a lens of focal lenght 22mmm on a APSC sensor I wouldn't worry until I was apporaching 100mm then someone that knew what they wwre doing might notice. Sigh... To illustrate my point, here is a shot taken a few minutes ago with my X-T2 + XF35mm f/1.4 and a Hoya Infrared [R72] filter. ISO200, 1.9sec @ f/5.8. No calibration involved, scene was visible (though very red) in EVF and on LCD, focusing was not a problem. Processed quite quickly in LR Classic CC. https://www.dropbox.com/s/nb80vab1s6ptbqx/screenshot_301.png Here is the shot without the comparison: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ravrkd3sg9mcsp/_DSF6260.jpg -- Regards, Savageduck |
Funky IR Artefact
On 2018-04-27 23:05:30 +0000, Savageduck said:
On Apr 27, 2018, Savageduck wrote (in iganews.com): On Apr 27, 2018, Whisky-dave wrote (in ): On Friday, 27 April 2018 16:27:29 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote: Snip or dumb users or those that don;t care. would you say IR focussing matters on a lens of focal lenght 22mmm on a APSC sensor I wouldn't worry until I was apporaching 100mm then someone that knew what they wwre doing might notice. Sigh... To illustrate my point, here is a shot taken a few minutes ago with my X-T2 + XF35mm f/1.4 and a Hoya Infrared [R72] filter. ISO200, 1.9sec @ f/5.8. No calibration involved, scene was visible (though very red) in EVF and on LCD, focusing was not a problem. Processed quite quickly in LR Classic CC. https://www.dropbox.com/s/nb80vab1s6ptbqx/screenshot_301.png Here is the shot without the comparison: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ravrkd3sg9mcsp/_DSF6260.jpg Youpp. The tell tale chlorophylian highlights are there. Good job! Now if you could bother with straighten up the horizon a tad. To be frank: It looks like the shoot was taken during one of your world famous earth shakes... -- teleportation kills |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:41 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com