BruceG Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 I have a bunch of IR filters ranging from 500nm to 900nm, they are made not for photography but lasers. Today I tested most of them on my Sony A7S. The lens I used was a 28mm f3.5 taken out from Nikon AF600, a film camera, I tested it in UV and it was not too bad, just half a stop slower than EL-Nikkor 85/5.6 at same aperture. The comparison is made with the help of another f3.5 lens, because this lens has no aperture to stop down. And when full open, it is soft in the edges. With a same in-camera white balance, the photos look like this when put together: With white balance applied in post: White balanced with red-blue channels swapped: I have noticed IR response differ significantly across cameras, when I was using Nikon cameras, I never got such purple color in trees with 500nm filter, also 700nm had more colors on Nikon if I remember correctly. I also have two more filters which trasmit IR with a bit of light near 400nmZWB3:This one does not pass through any visible light, however the long wave UV that is let through makes the sky blue, even without swapping the channels. It gives blue sky and blue foliage different from any other IR filters. ZB1:This filter appears as dark purple/blue in color, it transmits too much the visible spectrum so that the characteristic high contrast around the clouds is lost. Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 Very nice display, Bruce. Thank you. I have noticed IR response differ significantly across camerasDoes this difference you have seen coorelate with whether the camera has been modified or not? Editor's Note: Bruce, I am going to edit your title to make it more searchable by indicating that it is an IR filter test. Link to comment
Andy Perrin Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 Interesting test. By 930nm, there should not be any hue variation left, so what you have there must be entirely from the white balancing? What happens if you do your white balance in post on the 930nm and then apply it to the others? Link to comment
Guest Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 Excellent line up. Very interesting to see where the step changes are in the sensor response. Link to comment
Cadmium Posted May 25, 2018 Share Posted May 25, 2018 Excellent! I want one for a pull down wall chart! Link to comment
Andrea B. Posted May 26, 2018 Share Posted May 26, 2018 We should all make our own version of this! It's so cool. Link to comment
BruceG Posted May 28, 2018 Author Share Posted May 28, 2018 Very nice display, Bruce. Thank you. I have noticed IR response differ significantly across camerasDoes this difference you have seen coorelate with whether the camera has been modified or not? Editor's Note: Bruce, I am going to edit your title to make it more searchable by indicating that it is an IR filter test.Of course, Andrea, I'm talking about cameras with both IR filter and AA filter removed, only this way is the camera's sensor fully exposed to all wavelengths. There has been some success using unmodified camera for IR is the past, but today's newer camera always have strong IR filtration. Link to comment
BruceG Posted May 28, 2018 Author Share Posted May 28, 2018 Interesting test. By 930nm, there should not be any hue variation left, so what you have there must be entirely from the white balancing? What happens if you do your white balance in post on the 930nm and then apply it to the others?In fact I did white balancing in post manually, that's how difference of hue is created in the 930 shot I guess. Actually using auto white balance in capture one always yield monochrome pictures from 800nm onwards. Link to comment
OlDoinyo Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 The 930 frame may still have a cast gradient, even if there is no true chromaticity. Careful Levels work could get rid of this, leaving a pure monochrome image. (Or take the lazy way out and convert to greyscale!) Link to comment
Andy Perrin Posted May 28, 2018 Share Posted May 28, 2018 The 930 frame may still have a cast gradient, even if there is no true chromaticity. Careful Levels work could get rid of this, leaving a pure monochrome image. (Or take the lazy way out and convert to greyscale!)Yes, that's what I'm talking about - since we know there isn't any chromaticity, it must be a cast. So why not white balance on the 930 frame and see what all the others do when you use that WB on them? I tried redoing it myself but the JPEG won't re-white balance properly. Link to comment
FPL Posted June 1, 2018 Share Posted June 1, 2018 Shots taken at bright sunny days with filter at 800+ nm could be processed as from sensor without Bayer filter:http://www.fpl.cz/tst/830nm_bayer.jpg Link to comment
Andy Perrin Posted June 2, 2018 Share Posted June 2, 2018 Shots taken at bright sunny days with filter at 800+ nm could be processed as from sensor without Bayer filter:http://www.fpl.cz/tst/830nm_bayer.jpgYes, this is the improvement in resolution (from using the subpixels as if they are separate pixels) that I was discussing with Andrea way back here:http://www.ultraviol...dpost__p__14343 We were not able to make it work at that time, but it seems someone has! Link to comment
colinbm Posted June 3, 2018 Share Posted June 3, 2018 Beautiful BruceI want this on my wall...........;-)Col Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now