If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
First images with my infrared converted 350D
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:27:46 +0000, David Ruether wrote:
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. Is Sony being "priggish" or are they responding to market pressure? "Daddy, don't get one of those awful Sonys, remember what happened at my fifteenth birthday party?". -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
First images with my infrared converted 350D
"J. Clarke" wrote in message ... On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:27:46 +0000, David Ruether wrote: 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. Is Sony being "priggish" or are they responding to market pressure? "Daddy, don't get one of those awful Sonys, remember what happened at my fifteenth birthday party?". I think, judging from the HUGE number of posts at the time the Sony was current requesting information on what filters worked best (and none about how to prevent the IR feature from working [after all, you do need to do particular things on the camcorder to turn it on - and this feature still works in current camcorders in low light...]). I think Sony just saw the exaggerated claims and got scared of the possibilities (I heard at the time that the Japanese were a bit less open to these than others might be...). I suppose there were legal considerations - but since the feature still works in low light, that seems unlikely... -- David Ruether http://www.ferrario.com/ruether |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
First images with my infrared converted 350D
Hi David,
Mind if I put a link over to your Nikon lens test page on my camera test page? Cheers, Wayne -- Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
First images with my infrared converted 350D
Arnor wrote:
Hi Wayne, Wayne J. Cosshall wrote: Have a look on my other site: http://www.dimagemaker.com/specials/digitalir/digitalir.php Been there I know IR is nothing new, but I'm new to itg It creates such interesting effects and many of the photos you have on your site look just awsome. There are several articles on IR with digital cameras and then tests of all the recent cameras I've had through for testing, unconverted, using a Hoya R72 IR filter for the shooting. They should give you a good idea of what you can get. All digital cameras can shoot in IR, just the exposures can be very long if they have a strong IR blocking filter installed, as most do. I located a Hoya RM-72 IR filter on Adorama for $48 (58mm) - is there a difference between RM-72 and R72? I think they are probably the same thing. They also have RM-90 which is at $285 which is a bit too expensive for me to experiment with. The Hoya R72 cuts in at 720nm, the RM90 cuts in at 900nm. The RM90 is better suited for forensic and scientific use, the R72 is preferred for pictorial use. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
First images with my infrared converted 350D
"Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message ... Hi David, Mind if I put a link over to your Nikon lens test page on my camera test page? Cheers, Wayne No problem. I have many links to other pages related to many articles on my photo-video site (below), and many sites refer to my articles... -- -- David Ruether http://www.ferrario.com/ruether |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
First images with my infrared converted 350D
"David Ruether" wrote in message ... "Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote in message ... Hi David, Mind if I put a link over to your Nikon lens test page on my camera test page? Cheers, Wayne No problem. I have many links to other pages related to many articles on my photo-video site (below), and many sites refer to my articles... -- -- David Ruether http://www.ferrario.com/ruether I am curious to know if there are any negitive issues with having the internal IR blocking filter removed from your 350D. Does it still perform well for conventional photos? I have the 350D and will be buying a 5D this summer. I have been toying with the idea of having my 350D go under the knife and having the IR blocking filter removed but do not want to turn it into and IR only camera. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
First images with my infrared converted 350D
I am curious to know if there are any negitive issues with having the internal IR blocking filter removed from your 350D. Does it still perform well for conventional photos? I have the 350D and will be buying a 5D this summer. I have been toying with the idea of having my 350D go under the knife and having the IR blocking filter removed but do not want to turn it into and IR only camera. If the conversion is done as mine was, with the IR blocking filter replaced with a visible light blocking filter, it becomes an IR only camera, which was what I wanted. You can also have the IR blocking filter removed but no new filter inserted, which makes the camera visible light and IR sensitive. You then need to use filters on the lens to control which band you shoot in. But it means when you shoot IR you have a visually opaque filter on the lens, making handheld framing awkward. Cheers, Wayne -- Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
First images with my infrared converted 350D
Hello!
Did you do the conversion yourself, or did you send it to them? I'm going to have my Coolpix 5400 done, but can't decide if I should try it or send it to them. Let me know how easy it seemed if you did it yourself! -Holly Annika1980 wrote: Wayne J. Cosshall wrote: Mine was done by LDP (www.maxmax.com) The 350D conversion is US$450 + return shipping. Turn around time is very fast. For those interested another company that does this is LifePixel. http://www.lifepixel.com/ I've been seriously considering having my Totally Digital D60 converted. I guess it would be the Totally Digital Infrared D60 then. Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, does it? |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
First images with my infrared converted 350D
Arnor wrote: Hi Wayne, Wayne J. Cosshall wrote: Yes, the R72 and RM72 are the same filter. The R72 still lets in a little red light, whilst the RM90 completely cuts off the visible. This gives a more intense IR effect but also longer exposure times. I'd What kind of exposure times are we looking at? Thanks re the images on my site. Now I have the modified 350D I will be expanding the range of subjects I shoot in IR, which I am looking forward too. On an expanding note: Has anyone experimented with the other end of the spectrum - the ultraviolet? In a previous life, I did some arc welding and the heavy duty UV screens could produce interesting effectsg Best regards, Arnor Baldvinsson San Antonio, Texas Yes, flower pictures are interesting, giving you a view of how some insects see them. You just need the right filter to cut out the rest of the light. I think B&W makes some. They probably cost even more than the IR filters. Ideally, a black and white CCD would work best. But it can be done in colour. http://www.naturfotograf.com/uvstart.html |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
First images with my infrared converted 350D
hollycoffeebean wrote:
Hello! Did you do the conversion yourself, or did you send it to them? I'm going to have my Coolpix 5400 done, but can't decide if I should try it or send it to them. Let me know how easy it seemed if you did it yourself! -Holly Annika1980 wrote: Wayne J. Cosshall wrote: Mine was done by LDP (www.maxmax.com) The 350D conversion is US$450 + return shipping. Turn around time is very fast. For those interested another company that does this is LifePixel. http://www.lifepixel.com/ I've been seriously considering having my Totally Digital D60 converted. I guess it would be the Totally Digital Infrared D60 then. Doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, does it? Well mine was done by them, as I wasn't game to try it myself. The 5400 is one I think I have seen step by step instructions for. Cheers, Wayne -- Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
First images with my infrared converted 350D | Wayne J. Cosshall | Digital Photography | 57 | January 20th 07 05:05 PM |
More test results of Canon 350D for Infrared photography | wayne | Digital Photography | 0 | February 14th 06 07:28 AM |
More test results of Canon 350D for Infrared photography | wayne | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | February 14th 06 07:26 AM |
Infrared tests of Canon 350D, Sony DSC-R1 and others | wayne | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | February 9th 06 03:03 AM |
Infrared tests of Canon 350D, Sony DSC-R1 and others | wayne | Digital Photography | 0 | February 7th 06 04:07 AM |