Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Can RED ONE do Infrared?

O

okcomputer33

Banned
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Points
0
:nerd:http://reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/red/confused.gif

I was told that if you buy a red camera you have the option of removing a film from the sensor that will allow to you to shoot infrared, is this true? and if so...

can red just build an infrared sensor that you can switch in the camera, instead of having two bodies you end up with a body and two sensors.

It sounds crazy cool, but is something that I was hoping you redusers could help me investigate.

Go Go gadget exit, thank you.
 
if you remove the IR element in front of the sensor you will end up with infrared shooting..
but.. this will ruin your warranty, and will not be a fix you could do.

never heard about that option on a normal basis. maybe something you can talk to red about if you need it specially done...
 
we will do this if you want... custom order. Warranty will be in tact as long as we do the switching as its not an easy swap.
 
I think it would be totally cool and I'm willing to spend $18K for it.
 
shoot infrared image? they are very different sensors!
 
Normal silicon sensors (both CCD and CMOS) have near-IR sensitivity out to around 950 nm, and you can use them to get the same bright-foliage, dark-sky type infrared photos that people have traditionally done with IR-sensitive film. In fact, for normal visible-light use you have to use a strong IR-cut filter to get good color response from silicon sensors, and that's the filter people are talking about possibly removing. (Since it's right next to the sensor, you could easily do serious damage to the camera if you aren't very skilled in that type of work.)

Mid- and long-wave IR, such as used for thermal imagers that reveal body heat in complete darkness, would require a different type of sensor, like a platinum silicide or mercury cadmium telluride. Cameras using those sensors are special-purpose, relatively low-resolution, relatively uncommon, and more expensive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PtSi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HgCdTe
 
We have a dedicated camera at RED converted to IR available for shoots for testing... If you want to Rent it for a shoot, we can make it available through a rental house... or of course you can have your camera modified.
 
Jarred Land said:
We have a dedicated camera at RED converted to IR available for shoots for testing... If you want to Rent it for a shoot, we can make it available through a rental house... or of course you can have your camera modified.
Click to expand...

I am interested in shooting wildlife (bats) with and IR camera using only an infrared light source so that the light is nearly invisible. Have you shot any tests using an infrared light source and if so is it possible to see some sample footage somewhere?
 
Jarred Land said:
We have a dedicated camera at RED converted to IR available for shoots for testing... If you want to Rent it for a shoot, we can make it available through a rental house... or of course you can have your camera modified.
Click to expand...

Hi Jarred,

please tell me where I can rent a RED converted to IR available.
It would be great if this is available in germany or via shipping.

Kind regards
Adam
 
Tom Lowe said:
How was this done?
Click to expand...

Maybe the middle section where they fidget with the filter can provide some clues? Just an infrared/near infrared filter perhaps? Then again you would need a filter if it was modified or not. so maybe no help at all. :| If so good thing MX has a lot of sensitivity.
 
Well, all sensors tend to let through a little IR despite the inbuilt IR-cut filter, and as we know this is true of the R1...

If you put a visible light filter (confusingly often called an Infrared filter in the photography world - the designation is either R72 or 89B) in front of the lens then you will be able to take IR images without modifying your camera, assuming that there is enough IR to get a sensible exposure.

Daytime shots with a long-ish exposure (such as a timelapse) might well be possible without modification - perhaps this is how Allstar took those images, and would explain the filter fidgeting, as Gavin puts it!

May not be the case, but should be possible in the right conditions. Those visible light filters are super cheap, so would be easy to test. As it happens, I've got one to go with an IR-modified 550D, so I could shoot a test, but I'm crazy busy at the moment - if no-one else gets around to it in the next few weeks I'll have a play and post up the results...
 
I did a test a few days ago to see what I'd get with a standard configuration RED camera. Mysterium sensor, nothing special, just point and shoot, this is what I got: http://web.me.com/phelanx/rough/ir.html

The MX would do a better job I presume with it being more sensitive. What this does tell me however is there is much more to be obtained if I wanted to pursue the idea. If it was shot when the foliage was green as opposed to dead or already fallen off the trees, it would have given a better result. The grass has already gone dormant and turned brown. The oak tree on the left has not lost most of its leaves yet, so it gives a good idea of what could be. Anyway, it's a pretty quick grab for discussion purposes.
 
tominfra.jpg


I am currently shooting with Red's "Infra" camera right now in Louisiana. It's a lot of fun shooting on this format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top