First images with my infrared converted 350D

"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message u...
David Ruether wrote:

Interesting images (I am curious why you chose such wide
stops with high shutter speeds, though...).

I used a wide aperture on those images because the info sheet that came back with the camera suggested a wider aperture would
produce the sharpest result because of diffraction effects as the aperture got smaller.

To test this I went out and shot with a Canon 50mm f1.8 and a Canon 100mm f2.8 macro at the full range of apertures to determine
with apertures gave the sharpest results:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=790

Cheers,

Wayne

Interesting test, but it appears to me from your web site images that
in the center of the 50mm (very likely an excellent lens), the sharpest
frames are at f5.6 and f8, with f4 being close (and the corners are
likely to be a bit behind, maybe peaking at f5.6, f8, and f11?). The
105M is also likely to be an excellent lens (meaning, more likely to
perform well at wide stops). It appears to be best at f5.6, f8, and f11
on your web site, with good performance also at f16. I would expect
more even center-to-corner performance with this longer lens, but
this is not necessarily true. I think your instruction sheet is wrong, as
indicated by both my experience with checking MANY lenses, and
by the images on your excellent web page. For small sensor/lens
cameras, what the instruction sheet said is more likely to be true
(see my diffraction comparisons with a Mini-DV camcorder, at --
www.ferrario.com/ruether/diffraction.htm) - but the differences
frame-to-frame are not huge. Very few lenses are at their best wide
open, and most of the best lenses in the middle and long FL range
peak no wider than about f5.6. You may want to use smaller stops
than you did for images like those on the web site you posted the
URL for - for not only better lens performance, but greater DOF...
--
David Ruether


http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

"David Ruether" wrote in message ...
"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message u...
David Ruether wrote:

Interesting images (I am curious why you chose such wide
stops with high shutter speeds, though...).

I used a wide aperture on those images because the info sheet that came back with the camera suggested a wider aperture would
produce the sharpest result because of diffraction effects as the aperture got smaller.

To test this I went out and shot with a Canon 50mm f1.8 and a Canon 100mm f2.8 macro at the full range of apertures to determine
with apertures gave the sharpest results:
http://www.dimagemaker.com/article.php?articleID=790

Cheers,

Wayne

Interesting test, but it appears to me from your web site images that
in the center of the 50mm (very likely an excellent lens), the sharpest
frames are at f5.6 and f8, with f4 being close (and the corners are
likely to be a bit behind, maybe peaking at f5.6, f8, and f11?). The
105M is also likely to be an excellent lens (meaning, more likely to
perform well at wide stops). It appears to be best at f5.6, f8, and f11
on your web site, with good performance also at f16. I would expect
more even center-to-corner performance with this longer lens, but
this is not necessarily true. I think your instruction sheet is wrong, as
indicated by both my experience with checking MANY lenses, and
by the images on your excellent web page. For small sensor/lens
cameras, what the instruction sheet said is more likely to be true
(see my diffraction comparisons with a Mini-DV camcorder, at --
www.ferrario.com/ruether/diffraction.htm) - but the differences
frame-to-frame are not huge. Very few lenses are at their best wide
open, and most of the best lenses in the middle and long FL range
peak no wider than about f5.6. You may want to use smaller stops
than you did for images like those on the web site you posted the
URL for - for not only better lens performance, but greater DOF...
--
David Ruether

Ah, it helps to read the text on a web site and not just "look at the
pictures"...;-) I would then have noticed that you had already noted
(using likely a sharper monitor than I...) what I pointed out above...
Carry on...! ;-)
--
David Ruether


http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

"Bill Funk" wrote in message ...
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:50:13 GMT, "David Ruether"
wrote:
"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message ...

I received my 350D back which was being converted to IR only shooting by LDP. My first shots with it are up at:
http://experimentaldigitalphotography.com/2006/11/27/first-light-with-my-350d-converted-to-ir-only/
or
http://tinyurl.com/yec2sf

Interesting images (I am curious why you chose such wide
stops with high shutter speeds, though...). BTW, Sony
removed a valuable feature from their later Mini-DV
cameras that offered "night shot" in the priggish belief
that people could use it as an "X-Ray" feature to see
through clothes.

Not that people "could", but "did". Then they posted images & videos
on the internet.

The ones I saw were pretty much "set up", I thought. Some
very particular conditions must be met for it to work at all.
Maybe the cloth in US clothes just isn't right...;-) It is always
easy to set up "examples" to prove an effect, if it possible at all,
but in random practice, it is a different matter (and, yes, out
of curiousity, I did try out the camcorder on city streets in the
summer and at the beach - and there were no results that
should have upset Sony...! ;-)

As a result, we can no longer shoot the
beautiful daylight IR in video that had been possible (see
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/ir.htm for some sample
frame-grabs from the early Sony TRV-9). With many
camcorders the IR blocking filter can still be switched
out for IR "night vision" (using IR light sources), but
current Sony camcorders unfortunately force
overexposure in daylight.
--
Bill Funk

The good news is that with the Sony camcorders, a good
technician can defeat the silly IR daylight-overexposure
"feature", again permitting the shooting of wonderful video
in IR (which I much prefer to IR stills).
--
David Ruether


http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

Maxmax also sells the X-Nite CC1 filter which is excellent in restoring
color.

Here's a test I did some time ago -
http://www.pbase.com/wjshaheen/image/53872041

Bill Shaheen
Gold Canyon, AZ



Arnor wrote:
Hi Wayne,

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:

I received my 350D back which was being converted to IR only shooting by
LDP. My first shots with it are up at:
http://experimentaldigitalphotography.com/2006/11/27/first-light-with-my-350d-converted-to-ir-only/
or
http://tinyurl.com/yec2sf

Looks pretty impressive to me! Any word on how much the conversion
costs? Do I understand it correctly that now this is a IR camera only,
i.e. you can't really take normal light photos on it any more?

Best regards,

Arnor Baldvinsson
San Antonio, Texas

LOLOL Thanks David.

Now I have tested these lenses I now have a good idea which apertures to
use. Next is testing my zooms.

Again it illustrates the importance of testing your own lenses. Because
of manufacturing tolerances it is possible for others to get different
results with the same model lens. MaxMax.com also recommends that people
do their own testing to determine the sweet spots. But I'll continue to
publish my testing as I hope it may guide some

Cheers,

Wayne

--
Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/

In article ,
"David Ruether" wrote:

The ones I saw were pretty much "set up", I thought. Some
very particular conditions must be met for it to work at all.
Maybe the cloth in US clothes just isn't right...;-) It is always
easy to set up "examples" to prove an effect, if it possible at all,
but in random practice, it is a different matter (and, yes, out
of curiousity, I did try out the camcorder on city streets in the
summer and at the beach - and there were no results that
should have upset Sony...! ;-)

David-

Where I worked a few years ago, there was a research project trying to
provide images of objects obscured by smoke and steam. Obviously IR was
a bad choice for the steam.

Although the project was never completed, they found a couple of
companies that claimed to have products capable of at least seeing
through clothing. These products were intended for use by airport
security screeners.

The reason your examples had to be "set up", was that they were using
too short of a wavelength. If you go to longer wavelengths, you reach a
point where it is no longer considered light, but microwave energy.
Microwave imaging techniques can be used instead of photographic
techniques. These millimeter microwaves are generated by objects, just
as infra red energy is generated by objects with temperatures above zero
degrees kelvin.

Yes, millimeter waves pass through clothing. I recall seeing one image
of a lady who posed (in other words, it was "set up") with weapons
hidden under her clothing. You could definitely see the weapons.

I just did a web search for "millimeter wave photo" and found several
sites that had example images. They were all images of men with hidden
weapons!

Fred

In article , druether@no-
junk.twcny.rr.com says...


"Bill Funk" wrote in message ...

Not that people "could", but "did". Then they posted images & videos
on the internet.

The ones I saw were pretty much "set up", I thought. Some
very particular conditions must be met for it to work at all.
Maybe the cloth in US clothes just isn't right...;-)

The type of clothing definitely makes a difference. As does the depth
of the IR filter used.

I discovered that accidentally with my own Sony NightShot video camera,
an analog model, not digital. I was trying out different filters for
previewing landscapes before shooting them with HIE. At first I thought
the see-through stories were nonsense, because the people who wandered
through my test-videos all seemed to be wearing bright white clothing,
not the least bit opaque.

But then a group of bicyclists rode through while I was using a very
deep filter (military surplus, a bit deeper than an RM1000), and I
discovered that yes, in fact, with a really deep IR filter, in bright
sun, thin sythetic fabrics are quite transparent. (But the chamois pads
inside cycling shorts are still quite opaque.)

No, I didn't keep the test videos, I really was trying to preview
landscapes for HIE, not be a voyeur.

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Infrared Photography Gallery:
http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/ir.html

In message ,
writes
snip
(But the chamois pads
inside cycling shorts are still quite opaque.)

Phew - we and they are safe for the time being!


--
Surfer!
Email to: ramwater at uk2 dot net

wrote in message .net...
In article , druether@no-
junk.twcny.rr.com says...
"Bill Funk" wrote in message ...

Not that people "could", but "did". Then they posted images & videos
on the internet.

The ones I saw were pretty much "set up", I thought. Some
very particular conditions must be met for it to work at all.
Maybe the cloth in US clothes just isn't right...;-)

The type of clothing definitely makes a difference. As does the depth
of the IR filter used.

I discovered that accidentally with my own Sony NightShot video camera,
an analog model, not digital. I was trying out different filters for
previewing landscapes before shooting them with HIE. At first I thought
the see-through stories were nonsense, because the people who wandered
through my test-videos all seemed to be wearing bright white clothing,
not the least bit opaque.

But then a group of bicyclists rode through while I was using a very
deep filter (military surplus, a bit deeper than an RM1000), and I
discovered that yes, in fact, with a really deep IR filter, in bright
sun, thin sythetic fabrics are quite transparent. (But the chamois pads
inside cycling shorts are still quite opaque.)

No, I didn't keep the test videos, I really was trying to preview
landscapes for HIE, not be a voyeur.

Ah, good...! ;-)
Few people have access to the really strong IR filters required
for the "see-through" effect to work very well (with the few cloth
types it works with with the Sony camcorders), and as you point
out, most clothes have opaque additional layers in the, ah, "areas
of possible interest"...;-). So, my original point stands - Sony was
being unnecessarily priggish in defeating a really nice feature on
their camcorders (one that permitted daylight motion shooting in
IR). Some very beautiful footage can be had with daylight B&W
IR video (I prefer it to IR stills), and shooting this is now more
difficult.
--
David Ruether


http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message u...

LOLOL Thanks David.

Now I have tested these lenses I now have a good idea which apertures to use. Next is testing my zooms.

Uh-oh! Except for a VERY few really distinguished exceptions, be
prepared for some shocks, particularly near the edges and corners
of the images of the zooms compared with non-zooms! ;-(

Again it illustrates the importance of testing your own lenses. Because of manufacturing tolerances it is possible for others to
get different results with the same model lens.

YES!!! I know even pros who blithely buy expensive lenses and go
out on jobs without checking them, only to find later that they are
very defective. I have pointed out manufacturing variations even in the
Nikon line, and in my lens evaluations I give the number of samples
tried for each lens, the range of performance, if a particular lens has
unusual variability, and note exceptionally bad performance defects
(at http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html). BTW, I generally
recommend distant test targets (more like what you used - though
I use a distant city scape run diagonally corner to corner, then reversed,
then a vertical frame with the horizon line at the top, then the same
with the camera inverted, all at a couple of relevant stops, but all
with everything locked down in manual).

MaxMax.com also recommends that people do their own testing to determine the sweet spots. But I'll continue to publish my testing
as I hope it may guide some Cheers, Wayne

I've had over 88,000 visits since the counter unfortunately got reset
in late June of 2005 - and it has been up since 1996, so I guess
some people have found it useful...;-)
--
David Ruether


http://www.ferrario.com/ruether