Infrared Time-Lapse Movie

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by M-M, Jun 12, 2012.

  1. M-M

    M-M Guest

    M-M, Jun 12, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. M-M

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/12/2012 4:31 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >
    > "M-M" wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    > 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 here:
    >
    > 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
     
    PeterN, Jun 12, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. M-M

    M-M Guest

    M-M, Jun 13, 2012
    #3
  4. M-M

    M-M Guest

    In article <4fd7b5db$0$26612$-secrets.com>,
    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
     
    M-M, Jun 13, 2012
    #4
  5. M-M

    PeterN Guest

    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
     
    PeterN, Jun 13, 2012
    #5
  6. M-M

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/12/2012 9:21 PM, M-M wrote:
    > In article<4fd7b5db$0$26612$-secrets.com>,
    > 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.
    >


    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
     
    PeterN, Jun 13, 2012
    #6
  7. M-M

    M-M Guest

    In article <4fd7efea$0$26630$-secrets.com>,
    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
     
    M-M, Jun 13, 2012
    #7
  8. M-M

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:53:59 AM UTC+1, David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "PeterN" wrote:
    > On 6/12/2012 4:31 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > >



    > 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


    Do you mean this sort of thing ;-)

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/616881236/in/photostream

    taken in 1982 with the old kodak C4 proccess IR film and yellow filter
     
    Whisky-dave, Jun 13, 2012
    #8
  9. M-M

    Pablo Guest

    Pablo, Jun 13, 2012
    #9
  10. M-M

    M-M Guest

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> wrote:

    > On Wednesday, June 13, 2012 12:53:59 AM UTC+1, David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > > "PeterN" wrote:
    > > On 6/12/2012 4:31 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > > >

    >
    >
    > > 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

    >
    > Do you mean this sort of thing ;-)
    >
    > http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/616881236/in/photostream
    >
    > taken in 1982 with the old kodak C4 proccess IR film and yellow filter



    You have some neat stuff there.

    People come out ghostly though. But you can always tell if someone dyes
    their hair since in IR the dye is invisible and you can see what the
    person would look like if gray.

    --
    m-m
    Photo Gallery:
    http://www.mhmyers.com
     
    M-M, Jun 13, 2012
    #10
  11. M-M

    RichA Guest

    On Jun 12, 3:54 pm, M-M <> wrote:
    > 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 here:
    >
    > http://www.netaxs.com/~mhmyers/ir/gsir/gsir.html
    >
    > --
    > m-m
    > Photo Gallery:http://www.mhmyers.com


    IR is the most efficient haze-cutting filter, works best of course if
    the camera has had its cyan IR filter removed.
     
    RichA, Jun 13, 2012
    #11
  12. M-M

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/12/2012 11:16 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >
    >
    > "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>
    >


    I like your second image. though a smidge more detail in the highlights,
    and a darker sky would add a lot of drama to the scene

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jun 17, 2012
    #12
  13. M-M

    PeterN Guest

    On 6/12/2012 11:21 PM, M-M wrote:
    > In article<4fd7efea$0$26630$-secrets.com>,
    > 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.
    >


    I was indeed referring to a filter like the Hoya R72 or a Wratten 87. I
    don't think I could hand hold a camera with either of those.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jun 17, 2012
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Angela King

    time lapse using webcam

    Angela King, Sep 28, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    752
    indeepspace
    Sep 30, 2005
  2. Gisle Hannemyr

    Good infrared/near infrared camera

    Gisle Hannemyr, Jul 24, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    4,053
    Michael Meissner
    Jul 24, 2004
  3. Wayne J. Cosshall
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    438
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Jan 28, 2007
  4. M-M
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,376
    Paul Furman
    Feb 23, 2009
  5. Anonymous

    TIME-LAPSE POPSICLE & CLOCK VIDEO TIME-LAPSE

    Anonymous, Jul 18, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    516
    Anonymous
    Jul 18, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page