| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Converting the D90 to IR
Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
 |
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 12:32 AM on 09.07.09 |
| ->> does anyone know if the video mode will work in IR if converted? |
|
Corey Perrine, Photographer
|
Patrick Fallon, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Curtis Clegg, Photographer
|
Sycamore | IL | USA | Posted: 8:23 AM on 09.07.09 |
->> There is no amount of Photoshop work that can truly duplicate the look of infrared (more accurately, "near-infrared" on converted and consumer cameras):
http://www.sportsshooter.com/curtisclegg/irvscolor/
Infrared light behaves in weird and unpredictable ways, as demonstrated in the article Patrick referred to. There is no better tool than a converted digital camera to explore this quirky side of photography.
I agree with Corey in that the D90 is still a fine and serviceable camera... most people end up converting much older cameras. There is seldom a need for high resolution or frame rates with infrared photography. But for doing video on the D90, I really can't think of a reason that video mode wouldn't work. All the technicians do is swap out the hot mirror filter (which normally covers the sensor) with something like an R72.
Personally I have the most fun with my old converted Canon G3... partly because of the live preview, partly because it's small enough to carry almost everywhere, and partly because the small sensor gives a wide depth of field (near-IR light focuses differently than visible light, so having extra DOF gives a nice safety margin). Video still works on the G3.
I would ask the folks at lifepixel.com about their experiences with the D90. |
|
Curtis Clegg, Photographer
|
Jon Blacker, Photographer
|
Toronto | ON | Canada | Posted: 11:28 AM on 09.07.09 |
->> Corey,
Curtis is right; no amount of PS work can truly duplicate real IR. Last year I converted a D200 to full time IR that I'm using for a long-term project. Trying to duplicate the effect on a regular image file doesn't come close. I also used that body when I was in El Mirage in June (see my member page) to make some images of the timed racing at the lakebed.
The fourth link you posted is from LifePixel, the company that I bought my IR sensor filter from (Nikon did the actual conversion for me). That tutorial addresses working with images that are actual IR files, not making regular files look IR. |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 12:00 PM on 09.07.09 |
->> I shoot IR almost every week at weddings. It is not something you can do in PS....I recommend Vitaly at Lifepixel.com and have had 3 bodies converted by him. that said, I would recommend using an older body for this, as it is a niche sort of thing, and you can pick up D70s's or other older models quite inexpensively. The images do require a bit more pp than visible light pix however.
BB |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 1:39 PM on 09.07.09 |
->> I in part agree with you guys who are saying you'd use an older, ie; cheaper body, but definitely understand why Debra would want a D90 converted.
I had an old 6 meg Canon that I used to shoot some IR with and it worked really well. Thing that used to totally frustrate me though was when I did have an amazing shot, I hated being stuck with "only" 6 megs. Also the lack of some modern handling and ISO performance of the newer bodies is something you really get used to.
Just comes down to how much you'll use the camera I guess. If its going to be something you seriously will use a lot, such as Brad saying he uses one every week, then I'd say by all means get the best IR camera you can afford.
Personally I think a D5000 might be a winner for IR. Same sensor as the D90 and that handy flip out LCD, which for me would be a real plus, because the type of shots I'd do with IR would be landscapes and other things where I might want a unique camera angle. Then of course for video work a flip out LCD is almost a requirement.
Debra, if you do end up getting one done, please be sure to post a follow up. I'd love to see some IR video work |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 11:05 PM on 09.07.09 |
->> There is some talk that the larger mp cameras actually will not be as effective for ir use. Something to do with the size of the photosites.....anyway. I have done dozens and dozens of very large wall prints all made from 8mp and down....I currently use a d70s, and its a little better than the canon rebel xti i had previously to it...esp on faces.
bb |
|
Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 11:54 PM on 09.07.09 |
->> I have a D100 that i was going to convert but I have been seeing all the images Rhona Wise is shooting with her IR converted D2X and they have blown me away.
I picked up the D90 several months ago and was debating whether to sell it to get the new D300s, wait to see if they come out with a D700s (which I hope to be similar to the Canon 5D Mark2), keep it as my toy camera when I am just out wandering for fun, or converting it. I have to admit this camera has impressed me more than I thought it would.
Getting the D5000 for IR has crossed my mind
Jeff-if I convert the D90 or get the D5000 to convert I will post some images.
As much as I was thinking about the D100, the small screen and 6 megapixels is something that I am not thrilled with
DLR |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 3:29 PM on 09.08.09 |
->> the d90/d300/d300s all share the same sensor....afaik
what you need to ask yourself is how much are you gonna use it..and how much does that warrant spending. IMO, for most users that does not mean buying a new dslr unless you just have too much money laying around. The d100/d200/d70/d70s all make wonderful IR images. Its not about which camera you use to make them.
Again, IR work is ALL about the PP. Much more so than for visible light captures. Its not a SOOC sort of thing at all.
There is a terrific photog up in your neck of the woods named Ulysses Ashton. He does some amazing IR work as well, and is very knowledgeable and eager to share...so I'd say give him a shout before you buy a new body to convert...just my 2cts
bb |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 5:44 PM on 09.08.09 |
->> Brad,
Would you have any knowledge as to if there is any preference to a D200, D70, D40 etc for IR use ? Not so much in regards to the price of the camera itself, but rather if one model/sensor might perform better for IR than another or if its cheaper to mod a certain model ?
I remember with Canon different models cost different amounts for the mods due to some internal design differences that affected the labor required to do the work. |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 8:04 PM on 09.08.09 |
->> FYI--
The Leica M8 & M8.2 are made by Leica deliberately without the IR filter, as such in order to prevent a color shift in blacks it is necessary to use a UV/IR Cut filter in front of the lens.
I say this as once you have a DSLR converted for IR photography, it is no big deal to acquire a UV/IR Cut filter to use in front of your lens, effectively restoring the spectrum balance at the sensor.
Besides Leica, B&W offers a line of high quality UV/IR Cut filters.
If one is shooting Black & White, the filter isn't necessary and I find Black and White files have a longer tonal range when shot without the UV/IR Cut filter, using instead just a standard UV filter. |
|
Erik Markov, Photographer
|
Kokomo | IN | | Posted: 9:25 PM on 09.08.09 |
| ->> I'll try not to hijack your thread Debra. One question I've got, at least looking at Lifepixel's site, which conversion to have done. I've got a D70 I'm considering converting, but don't know if I should go with complete b/w, some version of color etc. Anyone have suggestions? |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 9:33 PM on 09.08.09 |
->> Steve, I believe that would only work if you had the IR filter taken out and replaced with a clear glass filter. Then to do IR only images you'd need an IR only filter on the lens, and to do normal color images you'd need a IR/UV filter.
What most people do though is get the IR cut filter taken out and replaced with an IR only filter, such as a r72 or 87c (my favorite for b&w)Doing that means you can't use the camera for anything other than dedicated IR images.
Now doing it the other way does have some advantages as your not stuck with just an IR only camera, but its got some real downsides as well.
1 of which is that you still need to buy IR filters. If we are talking 77mm they are pretty expensive, about $175 for a B+W 093/87c
Then when you put that filter over your lens, you can't see through the viewfinder. So to compose you've got to take the filter off and on all the time which is a bit of a pain.
One of the reasons for doing the IR mod in the first place is the filter is just over the sensor and as such, you can still look through your lens as normal. Theres no filter to remove for composition.
Other downside is while you could use it for normal photography you need the IR cut hot mirror style filter for those images which is even more expense.
So we'd be looking at lets say $300 for a D70, $300 for the mod, $175 for a 87C filter and about $100 for the hot mirror which gets a little pricey with the already mentioned hassle of putting the filters on/off and compositional issues.
Basically for the same money you could buy a D70 and have it IR modded and then if you wanted to shoot normal images buy a second D70 for what the filters would cost.
I would be interested to see more about the tonal range with B&W images without the hot mirror. I've heard it makes a slight increase in resolution but havent' heard it can expand tonal range.
What I'd personally love is a true mono B&W camera without a bayer sensor design. IF you could have a 12meg mono sensor you'd capture incredible resolution and tonal range. |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 11:05 PM on 09.08.09 |
->> "I say this as once you have a DSLR converted for IR photography, it is no big deal to acquire a UV/IR Cut filter to use in front of your lens, effectively restoring the spectrum balance at the sensor."
Not sure where you got that idea...but I'm almost certain it is incorrect. Not only is the IR blocking filter removed, another is put in its place that only allows a certain wavelength to pass....ie 729nm etc etc. So simply putting another filter in front of your lens is not going to restore it to normal operations. You can for a small fee, send it back to the company that did your mod, and they can restore your original filter back....but thats the only way asfaik. You can read up on it at www.lifepixel.com
Jeff, I know photogs with the d100, d200, d70+d70s, and d700 all modded. All are very happy with the results. Personally, I'd try to pick the one whose sensor exhibited the least noise. The D700 obviously wins that hands down...but again for the money, any older model will give great results. You can see loads of IR work on my wedding website and blog if you want.
www.bciphoto.com
bb |
|
Curtis Clegg, Photographer
|
Sycamore | IL | USA | Posted: 11:08 PM on 09.08.09 |
->> Deborah - if you don't have a specific assignment or project where you absolutely have to have an infrared DSLR, you might want to consider getting a Canon G9 converted. It's small enough to carry anywhere, it will do nice stills and video, and it's a lot less expensive than most used DSLRs. Plus the live preview is a good way to get familiar with how IR behaves.
Steve U. - yes that will work but you will run into the same problems as using an IR filter like an R72 screwed onto the front of the lens of an unconverted camera. The internal hot mirror filter might admit all visible light, but block 95% of all infrared light (just a guess on the percentages here). When you put an additional filter on front of the lens that admits virtually all IR light but blocks 95% of all visible light, you end up with only a small part of the spectrum (at low light levels besides) that makes it to the sensor. This equates to longer exposure times, regardless of which filter is over the sensor and which is over the lens. But at least that way (the way you suggest) the opaque filter is not in front of the lens so that's a plus and you can compose and focus normally.
Erik M. - of all the infrared filters, the Hoya R72 blocks the least amount of visible light, so therefore some color information gets through along with the IR light. Do a Google search on "channel swapping" and "false color schemes" to see what kinds of effects you can get with an R72. The most common "look" is to manipulate (via channel swapping) so that the skies look dark blue, but foliage appears frosty white. If you like that look, the R72 will give it to you.
The stronger IR filters like an 87c block virtually all visible light so you essentially end up with a grayscale image with the characteristic black skies, black water, and white foliage.
Of course R72 images can be converted to grayscale too, but you don't quite get the "classic" look of an 87c although with some judicious Photoshop work you can get close. |
|
Curtis Clegg, Photographer
|
Sycamore | IL | USA | Posted: 11:15 PM on 09.08.09 |
->> P.S. to get an idea why digital cameras have internal hot mirror filters to begin with, take a step back in Rob Galbraith's time machine and read about the Kodak NC2000, ca. 1999:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6463-7191
Page 3 of the article describes the effects excess infrared light had on skin tones, flames, and other subjects. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|