POWER OF INFRARED (PT.2)

On Jan 2, 3:37 pm, Annika1980 <annika1....TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:
> Went back up on the hill today to do a few more comparison shots.
> It was much hazier today than yesterday, so much the better to test
> out the power of the infrared.
>
> Here are two comparison shots (cropped and resized):http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153550/original
>
> Here is an actual size crop from the 40D:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153551/original
>
> And the same scene taken a minute later with the Totally Infrared D60:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153553/original

Very nicely done.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: POWER OF INFRARED (PT.2) 

On Jan 3, 11:37 am, Annika1980 <annika1....DeleteThis@aol.com> wrote:
> Went back up on the hill today to do a few more comparison shots.
> It was much hazier today than yesterday, so much the better to test
> out the power of the infrared.
>
> Here are two comparison shots (cropped and resized):http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153550/original
>
> Here is an actual size crop from the 40D:
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153551/original
>
> And the same scene taken a minute later with the Totally Infrared D60:
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153553/original

Much better comparison! This is quite intriguing. Have you tried
using an IR filter on the 40D as well? I wonder whether the sensors
read IR or through haze differently - there may be other factors
contributing.

I find the difference quite hard to believe, and will definitely try
this out once the rainstorms finish up. (We are having a nice drought-
breaking few weeks.. but visibility is often down to a km or less..)


As a postscript, this is the sort of thing that Rita and other
pretenders, never seem to be able to manage.. Has anyone ever seen
Rita, DMac, John Navas or the name-change-troll *accept challenges?*
*repost improvements*? *learn anything*?

(O:
 >> Stay informed about: POWER OF INFRARED (PT.2) 

On Jan 3, 5:40 am, Scott W <biph....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 2, 3:37 pm, Annika1980 <annika1....RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Went back up on the hill today to do a few more comparison shots.
> > It was much hazier today than yesterday, so much the better to test
> > out the power of the infrared.
>
> > Here are two comparison shots (cropped and resized):http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153550/original
>
> > Here is an actual size crop from the 40D:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153551/original
>
> > And the same scene taken a minute later with the Totally Infrared D60:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153553/original
>
> Very nicely done.
>

Yes, looks like no flowers are in order. I have to say, though, the IR
version does have a noise-reduced look to it; I wonder what Brett used
for conversion.
 >> Stay informed about: POWER OF INFRARED (PT.2) 

On Jan 3, 6:20 am, acl <achilleaslazari... DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 5:40 am, Scott W <biph... DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 2, 3:37 pm, Annika1980 <annika1... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Went back up on the hill today to do a few more comparison shots.
> > > It was much hazier today than yesterday, so much the better to test
> > > out the power of the infrared.
>
> > > Here are two comparison shots (cropped and resized):http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153550/original
>
> > > Here is an actual size crop from the 40D:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153551/original
>
> > > And the same scene taken a minute later with the Totally Infrared D60:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153553/original
>
> > Very nicely done.
>
> Yes, looks like no flowers are in order. I have to say, though, the IR
> version does have a noise-reduced look to it; I wonder what Brett used
> for conversion.

Actually, after also looking at the non-IR version, it seems the "NR"
I thought I saw is due to atmospheric effects or something. It's
present in both. So never mind
 >> Stay informed about: POWER OF INFRARED (PT.2) 

On Jan 2, 10:11 pm, Troy Piggins <usenet-0... DeleteThis @piggo.com> wrote:
> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153553/original
>
> But do you see what I mean with this one?  It looks like brush
> strokes or something.  Is that perhaps due to the conversion
> affecting the sensor?  

Don't know. I figured it looks that way because it is shooting
through about 45 miles of haze between me and the Smoky Mountains in
the distance. They don't call them the Smokies for nothing.
 >> Stay informed about: POWER OF INFRARED (PT.2) 

* Annika1980 is quoted & my replies are inline below :
> Went back up on the hill today to do a few more comparison shots.
> It was much hazier today than yesterday, so much the better to test
> out the power of the infrared.
>
> Here are two comparison shots (cropped and resized):
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153550/original
>
> Here is an actual size crop from the 40D:
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153551/original

That's awesome Bret. Thanks for going up there again. As I said
before, I see the mountains much clearer as you were pointing
out.

> And the same scene taken a minute later with the Totally Infrared D60:
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153553/original

But do you see what I mean with this one? It looks like brush
strokes or something. Is that perhaps due to the conversion
affecting the sensor? At the resized version 91153550 above it
looked fine.

--
Troy Piggins
Please feel free to provide constructive criticism on any photos I post. I'm
always learning and appreciate feedback.
 >> Stay informed about: POWER OF INFRARED (PT.2) 

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:37:18 -0800 (PST), Annika1980
<annika1980.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote:

>Went back up on the hill today to do a few more comparison shots.
>It was much hazier today than yesterday, so much the better to test
>out the power of the infrared.
>
>Here are two comparison shots (cropped and resized):
>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153550/original
>
>Here is an actual size crop from the 40D:
>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153551/original
>
>And the same scene taken a minute later with the Totally Infrared D60:
>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153553/original


I wonder if there might be some way of combining the photos to give
the illusion of clarity and color at the same time.
 >> Stay informed about: POWER OF INFRARED (PT.2) 

Troy Piggins wrote:
> * Annika1980 is quoted & my replies are inline below :
>> Went back up on the hill today to do a few more comparison shots.
>> It was much hazier today than yesterday, so much the better to test
>> out the power of the infrared.
>>
>> Here are two comparison shots (cropped and resized):
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153550/original
>>
>> Here is an actual size crop from the 40D:
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153551/original
>
> That's awesome Bret. Thanks for going up there again. As I said
> before, I see the mountains much clearer as you were pointing
> out.
>
>> And the same scene taken a minute later with the Totally Infrared D60:
>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153553/original
>
> But do you see what I mean with this one? It looks like brush
> strokes or something. Is that perhaps due to the conversion
> affecting the sensor? At the resized version 91153550 above it
> looked fine.

Keep in mind that infrared doesn't "see" things the same as visible
light. Looking at the vehicles on the road, for example - where a
visible-light photo might see things like shadows, painted logos on
truck, and things that provide "texture" (even at that small size), IR
sees only large expanses of surfaces emitting the same IR signature.
There isn't really a "tonal quality" to the light. Same with the trees
- where you'd normally see a lot of detail because of shadows and such,
the IR won't really show that up.

That large vertical tank just right of center-frame is a good example:
on the visible-light version, you can see the curvature of it from the
varying shadows and filtered light caused by the haze (ie. the shadowed
side is still lit somewhat because of the atmospheric scattering of
daylight). On the IR version, it's lit on one side, and not on the
other... period.

The reason the mountains are so clear is because the IR isn't affected
by the haze... which means the haze also doesn't scatter and "soften"
the light like it does for the visible spectrum.

It certainly does look like a "brush strokes" effect though, doesn't it?
 >> Stay informed about: POWER OF INFRARED (PT.2) 

Annika1980 wrote:
> Went back up on the hill today to do a few more comparison shots.
> It was much hazier today than yesterday, so much the better to test
> out the power of the infrared.
>
> Here are two comparison shots (cropped and resized):
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153550/original
>
> Here is an actual size crop from the 40D:
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153551/original
>
> And the same scene taken a minute later with the Totally Infrared D60:
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153553/original

Very impressive.

Hey Bret, I forwarded your first post on to a friend, who was very
impressed, but also thought the IR treatment was pretty expensive. I
was trying to remember exactly how the Totally Infrared D60 came about -
wasn't it just an old "spare" D60 that you had modified with an internal
IR filter? Could you (yok yok) shed some light on the subject? WAS it
particularly expensive?
 >> Stay informed about: POWER OF INFRARED (PT.2) 

mark.thomas.7 RemoveThis @gmail.com wrote:

> As a postscript, this is the sort of thing that Rita and other
> pretenders, never seem to be able to manage.. Has anyone ever seen
> Rita, DMac, John Navas or the name-change-troll *accept challenges?*
> *repost improvements*? *learn anything*?

Don't hold your breath...
 >> Stay informed about: POWER OF INFRARED (PT.2) 

On Jan 3, 3:32 am, Matt Ion <soundy....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey Bret, I forwarded your first post on to a friend, who was very
> impressed, but also thought the IR treatment was pretty expensive.  I
> was trying to remember exactly how the Totally Infrared D60 came about -
> wasn't it just an old "spare" D60 that you had modified with an internal
> IR filter?  Could you (yok yok) shed some light on the subject?  WAS it
> particularly expensive?

I used lifepixel.com for the conversion. You can go to the link Neil
provided for more info. The Totally Digital D60 wasn't getting much
use after the 20D arrived so Miss Helen graciously offered to pay for
the IR conversion. So if any of my infrared pics make you smile you
can thank Helen.

Here's one I took just for her:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/83846321

Now that the 40D is here maybe I'll have my 20D converted for
astrophotography.
Canon sells a specialized 20D just for that purpose.
 >> Stay informed about: POWER OF INFRARED (PT.2) 

On Jan 3, 3:33 am, Matt Ion <soundy....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> mark.thoma....RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:
> > As a postscript, this is the sort of thing that Rita and other
> > pretenders, never seem to be able to manage..  Has anyone ever seen
> > Rita, DMac, John Navas or the name-change-troll *accept challenges?*
> > *repost improvements*?  *learn anything*?
>
> Don't hold your breath...

I understand Rita is busy right now working on an extensive series of
tests featuring propane tanks and floating shoes. And D-Mac (oops, I
meant Queen Priscilla) is trotting out the old flash for some more
night pelican shots. Navas, on the other hand ..... well, we'll just
have to agree to disagree about what he is doing.
 >> Stay informed about: POWER OF INFRARED (PT.2) 

On Jan 3, 3:42 am, Walter Banks <wal... RemoveThis @bytecraft.com> wrote:
> Charles wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 17:37:18 -0800 (PST), Annika1980
> > <annika1... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >Went back up on the hill today to do a few more comparison shots.
> > >It was much hazier today than yesterday, so much the better to test
> > >out the power of the infrared.
>
> > >Here are two comparison shots (cropped and resized):
> > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153550/original
>
> > >Here is an actual size crop from the 40D:
> > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153551/original
>
> > >And the same scene taken a minute later with the Totally Infrared D60:
> > >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/91153553/original
>
> > I wonder if there might be some way of combining the photos to give
> > the illusion of clarity and color at the same time.
>
> What and accuse Bret of photoshopping the image
>
> Well done comparison. I think we have all learned something
> from this exercise.
>
> I got up this morning to 4 deg F temperatures. Does the lower
> temperature just act like lower light levels? At what point
> does the camera body temperature compared to the
> outside temperature start affecting images.

The camera is using near inferred, not thermal inferred, therefor the
inferred that the body of the camera gives off is far to long in
wavelength for the sensor to see.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: POWER OF INFRARED (PT.2)