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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Infrared Time-Lapse Movie
Here is a very interesting infrared effect.
I shot a time-lapse sequence with an IR filter (using a GoProHD2). The trees made a very sudden dramatic change. The movie is only 10 seconds total. It's at the bottom of the page he http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/gsir/gsir.html -- m-m Photo Gallery: http://www.mhmyers.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Infrared Time-Lapse Movie
"M-M" wrote in message ... Here is a very interesting infrared effect. I shot a time-lapse sequence with an IR filter (using a GoProHD2). The trees made a very sudden dramatic change. The movie is only 10 seconds total. It's at the bottom of the page he http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/gsir/gsir.html Haven't made it to the movie yet, but those mouse-overs are nicely done. Interestingly, I prefer the ivy covered house in normal to the IR. But with the others, it's magic how a complete boring scene comes to life in IR. Thanks! (Really on the thanks. I've been having fun with the IR, but worry that it will soon turn to a way overused gimmick, so those comparisons are interesting.) FWIW, of late I've been cranking the contrast in my IR images more than you do. In Lightroom 4.1, I crank the contrast to 100% and often expand the blacks and/or whites. (Using a deep-IR converted 5D, which makes doing that kind of comparison harder: would require having two bodies along.) Oops. Don't have quicktime. Oh, well. No movie for me. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Infrared Time-Lapse Movie
On 6/12/2012 4:31 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
"M-M" wrote in message ... Here is a very interesting infrared effect. I shot a time-lapse sequence with an IR filter (using a GoProHD2). The trees made a very sudden dramatic change. The movie is only 10 seconds total. It's at the bottom of the page he http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/gsir/gsir.html Haven't made it to the movie yet, but those mouse-overs are nicely done. Interestingly, I prefer the ivy covered house in normal to the IR. But with the others, it's magic how a complete boring scene comes to life in IR. Thanks! (Really on the thanks. I've been having fun with the IR, but worry that it will soon turn to a way overused gimmick, so those comparisons are interesting.) If your image has good composition the IR effect can greatly enhance the image. I use an old Nikon P&S that I had converted by removing the filter. Some claim you also need an IR filter, but I don't understand what that would accomplish. -- Peter |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Infrared Time-Lapse Movie
"PeterN" wrote: On 6/12/2012 4:31 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote: (Really on the thanks. I've been having fun with the IR, but worry that it will soon turn to a way overused gimmick, so those comparisons are interesting.) If your image has good composition the IR effect can greatly enhance the image. Well, that's a different question from the overused gimmick problem. But since contrast appears in such radically different places, the same scene photographed from the same standpoint with the same AoV lens _can be_ a different composition in IR. Dramatic sky vs. boring sky, no differentiation in the foliage vs. wide range of tonalities in the foliage, etc. One problem I'm having with IR, is that it makes the trees look radioactive, which is a sensitive issue over here since Fukushima. (FWIW, the Japanese standard for background radiation is 1/3 the average background level in New Jersey. And they do cleanup things if said standard is exceeded.) I use an old Nikon P&S that I had converted by removing the filter. Some claim you also need an IR filter, but I don't understand what that would accomplish. The conversion may have added an IR pass filter (that blocks most or all visible light) in front of the sensor. If it didn't, you need an IR filter. There are some odd color effects you can get by doing color photography with IR contamination of the colors, but I'm not fond of those. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Infrared Time-Lapse Movie
On 6/12/2012 7:53 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
"PeterN" wrote: On 6/12/2012 4:31 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote: (Really on the thanks. I've been having fun with the IR, but worry that it will soon turn to a way overused gimmick, so those comparisons are interesting.) If your image has good composition the IR effect can greatly enhance the image. Well, that's a different question from the overused gimmick problem. But since contrast appears in such radically different places, the same scene photographed from the same standpoint with the same AoV lens _can be_ a different composition in IR. Dramatic sky vs. boring sky, no differentiation in the foliage vs. wide range of tonalities in the foliage, etc. One problem I'm having with IR, is that it makes the trees look radioactive, which is a sensitive issue over here since Fukushima. (FWIW, the Japanese standard for background radiation is 1/3 the average background level in New Jersey. And they do cleanup things if said standard is exceeded.) I use an old Nikon P&S that I had converted by removing the filter. Some claim you also need an IR filter, but I don't understand what that would accomplish. The conversion may have added an IR pass filter (that blocks most or all visible light) in front of the sensor. If it didn't, you need an IR filter. There are some odd color effects you can get by doing color photography with IR contamination of the colors, but I'm not fond of those. It was a cheapo conversion. Just removed the IR filter. Here is the result: http://peternewman.smugmug.com/Photography/Landscapes/21271534_mw4B9R#!i=1730614889&k=WGpJLmN&lb=1&s=A I will sometimes do color shifting in PS, which I can control: http://peternewman.smugmug.com/Photography/Abstract/21271728_bCdThq#!i=1693670410&k=4gXkj6L -- Peter |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Infrared Time-Lapse Movie
"PeterN" wrote: On 6/12/2012 7:53 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote: The conversion may have added an IR pass filter (that blocks most or all visible light) in front of the sensor. If it didn't, you need an IR filter. There are some odd color effects you can get by doing color photography with IR contamination of the colors, but I'm not fond of those. It was a cheapo conversion. Just removed the IR filter. Here is the result: http://peternewman.smugmug.com/Photography/Landscapes/21271534_mw4B9R#!i=1730614889&k=WGpJLmN&lb=1&s=A That looks good to me. Close to what I am getting with a built-in IR filter. http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/127605673/large http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/140083759/large I will sometimes do color shifting in PS, which I can control: http://peternewman.smugmug.com/Photography/Abstract/21271728_bCdThq#!i=1693670410&k=4gXkj6L That's extremeg. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Infrared Time-Lapse Movie
In article ,
PeterN wrote: I use an old Nikon P&S that I had converted by removing the filter. Some claim you also need an IR filter, but I don't understand what that would accomplish. There is a big difference. Removing an IR blocking filter from a camera simply allows IR to pass through, along with all visible wavelengths also. An IR filter added on top will prevent visible wavelengths while only allowing IR. -- m-m Photo Gallery: http://www.mhmyers.com |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Infrared Time-Lapse Movie
On 6/12/2012 9:21 PM, M-M wrote:
In , wrote: I use an old Nikon P&S that I had converted by removing the filter. Some claim you also need an IR filter, but I don't understand what that would accomplish. There is a big difference. Removing an IR blocking filter from a camera simply allows IR to pass through, along with all visible wavelengths also. An IR filter added on top will prevent visible wavelengths while only allowing IR. I may get one as a toy. I did some research and see there are indeed different effects that can be obtained with different filters. Some places charge $250 for the conversion. I paid $50 and the price of filters is all over the place. It also seems to be that a glass filter will greatly extend the exposure time, making IR useless for anything but landscapes. I may not be getting pure infrared, but so far I like what I see well enough to expand my toy. -- Peter |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Infrared Time-Lapse Movie
In article ,
PeterN wrote: It also seems to be that a glass filter will greatly extend the exposure time, making IR useless for anything but landscapes. True if the camera has an IR blocking filter. But if yours is converted, you should easily be able to hand-hold the camera. I can get 1/125 @ ISO 100. The sensor will see plenty of light come through- just not visible light. So if you try to look through a Hoya R72 you will not see anything but the camera will "see" a lot. m-m Photo Gallery: http://www.mhmyers.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Infrared Time-Lapse Movie
David J. Littleboy escribió:
"M-M" wrote in message ... http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/gsir/gsir.html Oops. Don't have quicktime. Oh, well. No movie for me. You don't need quicktime. -- Pablo http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/ http://paulc.es/piso/index.php |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Time Lapse Video | Alan Smithee[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | February 5th 09 04:32 AM |
time lapse | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 8 | February 27th 06 02:32 AM |
time lapse while trying to take a photo | the north wind | Digital Photography | 13 | February 20th 06 09:46 PM |