Topic: InfraRed Camera Conversion (Read 10677 times)

ligero · « **on:** February 22, 2007, 11:42:30 am »

Has anyone had a digital camera modified for infrared photography?
How happy were you with the conversion?
Can you tell me who you used for the modification?
Can you post an image captured with the modified camera?
Any suggestions for me?
I'm considering modifying a Canon EOS 400D / Digital Rebel XTi.

Thanks

jjlphoto · « **Reply #1 on:** February 22, 2007, 11:52:37 am »

http://maxmax.com/

Marsupilami · « **Reply #2 on:** February 23, 2007, 02:27:53 am »

The Canon 5 D is surprisingly a very good infrared camera without conversion. Certainly you have long exposures, normally even in daylight about 1 s with 400 Iso, but I prefer to have a full operational camera and not a converted one, as these infrared pictures tend to get boring if you do a lot.
It is a nice effect, I have done infrared way back to the Kodak black and white infrared film, with the Olympus E-10 and with the Nikon D-100. But the more I do, the less I get interested in, it is too much a wow effect, first great, but the more I look at it, also very very few pictures remain as great as they seemed at the the first look.

Christian

Danijela D. Karic · « **Reply #3 on:** February 23, 2007, 06:25:54 am »

Quote

Has anyone had a digital camera modified for infrared photography?
How happy were you with the conversion?
Can you tell me who you used for the modification?
Can you post an image captured with the modified camera?
Any suggestions for me?
I'm considering modifying a Canon EOS 400D / Digital Rebel XTi.

Thanks
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102384\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good set of questions.

I would also like to no some more info including the price of conversion.

Regards
Danijela

Danijela D. Karic · « **Reply #4 on:** February 23, 2007, 06:26:35 am »

Quote

http://maxmax.com/
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=102388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Thanks for the link.

Regards
Danijela

Danijela D. Karic · « **Reply #5 on:** February 23, 2007, 06:27:34 am »

Anybody with more info on good vs. bad conversion?

Regards
Danijela

Lisa Nikodym · « **Reply #6 on:** February 23, 2007, 11:52:15 am »

I had my Nikon D70 converted by maxmax, with mixed feelings. Despite their making a big deal about their clean room techniques, my camera came back with many large gobs of gunk visible in every photo that I was unable to clean off myself with a bulb blower or a Visible Dust brush, so I sent it back to them for cleaning (which they weren't particularly helpful or gracious about), but it did come back clean the second time.

Since the conversion, I've let the camera auto-focus, and sometimes it works fine and sometimes it doesn't work quite as well as I would like (with somewhat soft images). In the future, I'll probably try to manually focus instead.

I've found that I have to be careful to not overexpose - simply using the camera's luminance histogram isn't good enough, since the primary channel with signal, red, can be badly clipped while the other two channels are pretty dark. Oh, for a triple RGB histogram! So I typically take several bracketed shots, from about -1 to -3 stops on the exposure compensation, and one of them is usually good.

You have a lot of options for post-processing, and the images need a lot of post-processing because the red channel is the dominant one. You can adjust levels on the various channels to bring them more in line with each other and then switch some for weird color effects, or purists can just take the red channel and turn it into B&W (which is what I usually do).

If you want some examples (after post-processing), here are links to some of mine:
IR image 1
IR image 2
IR image 3

Lisa

samirkharusi · « **Reply #7 on:** February 23, 2007, 12:47:00 pm »

There are 2 principal modes for conversion:

1. The IR Blocker over the sensor is replaced with an R72 type filter (passes IR longer than 7200 Angstroms and blocks all visible wavelengths). Advantages: Camera autofocuses and you are able to see through the viewfinder. Disadvantages: Camera is no longer usable for normal photography (visible wavelengths).

2. The IR Blocker over the sensor is replaced with clear glass that has anti-reflection coatings. You use a Hoya R72 or Wratten 89B over the lens (5D) or in-between the lens and the mirror box (30D, 400D). Advantages: Camera autofocuses IR but you are unable to see anything through the viewfinder (totally black). You point by guesswork. But you can also use the camera for normal photography by using an IR Blocker over the lens (5D) or in-between the lens and mirror box (30D, 400D). It becomes like a normal camera then with a normal viewfinder.

Using pop-in filters between the lens and mirror box enables you to use the same filter for ALL your lenses. Consequently it is far more preferable to make these mods in a 1.6x crop DSLR that can use EFs mount lenses. The filter takes up the space for the extra rear protrusion of EFs lenses compared to EF lenses, so you cannot use an EFs lens with the pop-in filter in place. This gives numerous example photos at varied focal lengths. The way the filters work is explained by Hutech. They give an excellent service and you can even purchase a brand new modded camera from them, complete with a year's warranty. I bought a modded 20D from them and it works great, for IR, daytime shooting and also astrophotography. Autofocus works for all 3 modes, auto-exposure works for daytime shooting (not IR) and auto White Balance does not work for any of the 3 modes. You have to use Custom White Balance and then your daytime pics come out very well, though perhaps not as perfectly as you would wish for catalogue shoots when you might be very critical of color balancing.

firefox23508 · « **Reply #8 on:** June 01, 2007, 08:37:18 pm »

Hi! There are other companies that do this conversion besides MaxMax ... lifepixel.com is one and kromagery.oc is another. Both sites have a lot of great information. I have been toying with idea of doing this but I am almost liking the effect I get in Photoshop by doing a faux infrared conversion to color photos better than the real IR photos from the converted cameras. I copied a few photos from these sites and played with them in Photoshop and also converted one of my own normal color shots ... so far I am leaning towards my faux infrared but am still playing.

:Ollivr · « **Reply #9 on:** June 03, 2007, 01:20:20 pm »

Hi, just for info, the Sigma SD10 and SD14 cameras have removable IR-block filters (unsure about the SD9).
I took a few shots with the B&W 093 and (more recently) the Hoya IR72. I prefer the Hoya because AF doesnt work with the B&W.
If you like, you can have a look here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ollivr/sets/72157594501011986/

Regards,
O.

firefox23508 · « **Reply #10 on:** June 04, 2007, 11:12:50 am »

Hi! If you remove the filter, is there a clear glass remaining to protect the sensor or is the sensor then unprotected?
Thanks,
Bill

:Ollivr · « **Reply #11 on:** June 04, 2007, 10:04:02 pm »

Hi Bill, the sensor is more or less unprotected then. However, there should be some glass coating on top of it anyways. The IR filter which you screw out sits very close to the lens mount.
If you are interested you can look here:

IR with Sigma SD10

Regards,

O.

vacuum · « **Reply #12 on:** June 20, 2007, 06:30:02 am »

HAve anyone used antiglare lenses? We supply coating equipment for sputtering antiglare on lenses.

drew · « **Reply #13 on:** June 22, 2007, 04:35:35 am »

I had a 350D converted by Hutech a couple of years ago. IR/AA filter sandwich removed and replaced by clear glass, so I had to use an R72 or deep red filter over the taking lens. Liked it a lot.....Very sharp images and more dynamic range than the standard camera, but obviously mono only and I agree with the comments above for a need to be careful with exposure. Sold that camera about six months ago and had a 5D converted by maxmax as in 1/ above. Very, very nice. Camera autofocuses, no filters on the lenses, very strong pictorial effects. Very sharp images that are often not obviously IR. If B&W photography is your thing, I cannot recommend a conversion like this more highly.

wmchauncey · « **Reply #14 on:** June 22, 2007, 08:45:09 am »

I'm going to suggest a different route. There are several photoediting programs that will give you the IR effect.

drew · « **Reply #15 on:** June 22, 2007, 09:00:59 am »

They absolutely do not compare with true IR capture.

usathyan · « **Reply #16 on:** June 22, 2007, 09:36:57 am »

I have a converted Canon G3. Had it converted from lifepixel.com.

I have mostly been enjoying the camera and the images that it takes - A few gotchas though are the back focus issues (send them the lens that you mostly use - so that they can calibrate it for good focus) - often forcing you to use small apertures (min f8).

Also bear in mind that you often get more noise than usual - even if shooting in the lowest ISO. This is quite normal though.

See my IR images taken from the converted camera here -
http://www.flickr.com/photos/usathyan/sets...57600063656560/

firefox23508 · « **Reply #17 on:** June 25, 2007, 10:38:22 am »

Hi all, has anyone who has a converted camera used polarizing filters as well? I was wondering if they worked with IR converted cameras and if so, what is the effect?
Thanks,
Bill

Author Topic: InfraRed Camera Conversion (Read 10677 times)