Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

SWIR camera setup and some pics


Recommended Posts

I have a question....

 

If 900-1700 nm is referred to as Shortwave Infrared (SWIR), then what do they/you/we/whoever call the part from 700-900 nm?? Extra-short IR? Short-short IR? :lol:

Link to comment

Short answer: For me, NIR is between visible and SWIR. But some people call 700 (or 750...) to 3um all NIR. See below.

 

Longer version:

So the whole IR nomenclature issue is a mess! Depending on what you're reading, you can find many ways of dicing up the IR.

 

Edmund Optics: NIR=700 to 1100nm (in one part of their glossary) and "IR radiation is often divided into three smaller regions: 0.750 - 3μm, 3 - 30μm, and 30 - 1000μm – defined as near-infrared (NIR), mid-wave infrared (MWIR), and far-infrared (FIR), respectively," in ANOTHER part of the SAME Glossary!

 

Wikipedia's rundown (I use the Wiki cutoff table labeled "Commonly used sub-division scheme")

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared#Regions_within_the_infrared

Link to comment
  • 3 weeks later...

Andy, I was thinking about how to improve your SWIR pictures: you could use the well known stacking method used is astrophotography!

 

You have to:

 

- Disable every noise reduction settings on your camera

- Take at least 10 exposures of you subject (I think 30 should be far enough). These are the "light" frames.

- Take the same amount of exposures with same settings but without any light reaching the sensor (lens cap on, no light source). These are the "dark" frames.

- Use the freeware Deepskystacker to stack the images

- Get noise free image out of it.

- Enjoy :)

Link to comment
I didn't realize until just now that it was necessary to take the same amount of dark exposures too.
Link to comment

In this particular case, the amount of light frame is low so it is better to take the same amount of dark frames.

If you take a lot of light frames (more than 100 for example) you don't necesseraly have to take the same amount of dark frames, it would take forever (some people do). I usualy take 50 dark frames max when I am shooting the night sky.

Link to comment
Andy Perrin

Andrea and Hornblende: unfortunately you are mistaking the source of the noise! This is not ISO noise for the most part. It doesn't change in time. It is the pattern of phosphor grains on the screen, which I am photographing from the rear. I could stack an infinite number of frames and it would make no difference because (from the camera's point of view) the screen is the SUBJECT of the photo. What I have thought of doing is trying to SUBTRACT the fixed pattern of grains from the image. If you want an analogy, this is more like the line noise that you see from the sensor.

 

Edit: here is a diagram of the setup.

post-94-0-81567600-1489619202.jpg

Link to comment
  • 9 months later...
Andy, you could substract the pattern of the screen in photoshop. Just take multiple pictures in SWIR of a blanc screen, merge them in photoshop (that way you reduce the noise a little bit) and then you can substract it from other SWIR pictures. It should give you a much more "polished" image.
Link to comment

Hornblende, sadly that sounds like it should work but I have already tried it many times and failed. The issue is that the image does not come out of the camera looking like the above; instead the contrast is nearly zero and I am digitally stretching it quite a bit. Also the screen itself seems to be quite sensitive to the angle the light hits it at, and it doesn't fluoresce in quite the same pattern each time (although it is similar). Think of a rough surface that is illuminated at different angles -- different surfaces catch the light each time.

 

In fact, I just noticed that in post 32 above, I mentioned trying this.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...