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)

"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

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/

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.

"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

"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.

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/

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?

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

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/