IR Night-time stop motion stills - Possible? (1 Viewer)

I was considering converting an older camera to IR for experimentation. I'm interested in trying for Owls more than bats. There are plenty where I live, but it's more possible to catch them perching than with bats, of course. I've been reading but the tech, as usual, is a bit much for me. This is where I am so far.

CMOS sensors are the fastest and supposedly, the "DMOS" tech of Micro 4/3rds sensors makes that tech less "noisy." I don't think the lower Pixel ratings of older cameras are a negative for IR, night time photos, or even daytime "art pics." Non-mirrorless, shutter type or full frame cameras are a tad slower for auto-focus, (I think?), which would be sketchy enough in IR, I'm assuming, (completely in the dark about all this). Also, they'd be more cumbersome. I wouldn't want to "digi" or use my telescope as a "prime lens" as I do, because I'll need auto-focus. I will use a tripod, as blur will be the biggest enemy. I'm wanting to capture birds in motion.

The question really is... can IR do this through a longer lens at all? Is it only good for close distance and stills at close range, or moonlit nights? Am I chasing something not possible? I read somewhere and can't find it to save my life, of some technical "thing" that one can do, to enhance sensitivity, making this possible. I've read up on this and truly, as a personal preference, don't want to use flash for Owls... not to disparage anyone else's work. I certainly admire those images.

If you know anything about this and can help, or simply dispel my little delusion here... I'm all ears. Thanks

I had an older Sony video camera that had a night time IR setting. As with daylight the camera AF liked lots of light - in this case IR light and I used a suitable IR video lamp which worked well. I expect more modern equivalents would perform even better.

This camera was designed to operate purely by IR light, how well a converted still camera will focus after you have removed the filter on the sensor is down to a number of factors. There are many websites, as you probably know, which tell you all you need to know. This being typical.

http://www.lifepixel.com/

I have focussed with a somewhat longer vocal length than you would normally use with an IR trap camera, however, this was with a fairly hefty amount of IR light pumped into the subject area. This was obviously continuous light not really designed for stop motion and using long obsolete kit.

On occasion getting the exposure right was a bigger problem.

I'm sure that its possible, but clearly practical experience from someone will help enormously.

I've got a bit of correspondence going on with livepixel now, or have prior to posting here. Other than the conversion of the camera itself, the specifics of capturing a still of a moving target with a somewhat longer lens hasn't been answered. I'm anxious to find out if anyone has that experience. Illuminating the field is a new bit and I find it intriguing. Thanks much for your response. I live on the river and we have large beasties flying by each night. I could easily bathe the area in an augmenting, unobtrusive light without offending the neighbors or the birds. Well, the neighbors may be another story. Still going to keep an eye on this thread.

I just want to accelerate sensitivity of the IR only sensor on the Micro 4/3 body w/ a longer native lens for stills of moving birds at night.

A few thoughts on this:

- There are 3 principle modes of AF 1) is some sort of a distance measuring system (IR or other radiation based) that measures distance to the subject and adjusts lens focus, 2) contrast detection on the imaging sensor -only works in live view or non-dSLR type cameras where sensor alwyas "sees" image, 3) phase detection -works in most cameras with a designated AF module separate from the imaging sensor and most dSLRs use this as primary AF mode.

- With exception of 1), a system that was often used in video and P/S cameras at one point, AF requires sufficient light to detect contrast or phase shift. With IR and 3) is the question if the AF-module can "see" IR light or only the visible range of wavelength. If it is limited to the non-IR spectrum it will not work! If is works also in the IR range it will need sufficient intensities of IR to be able to AF. Sufficient IR intensities are also required for 2) to work, but the converted camera sensor will be able to AF if there is enough IR light. I would not expect AF to work reliably under IR conditions!

- All folks I know use manual focus for their IR photography, and the ones just using IR filters on non-converted cameras have crazy long exposure times and high ISO even during daytime. With converted cameras exposure times are shorter, but as far as I know still too long for most moving subjects. And at night there is considerably less IR than during the day .....

- Noise isn't as much a concern as true IR photography is monochrome and there will be no color noise, the kind that is the worse to look at. And AF in full frame dSLR cameras is faster as "Pro" AF modules and faster processors are used.

- To increase IR illumination you could light up you scene with IR lamps, that's what many of the trail cameras or surveillance systems have built in as IR LEDs. Still not sure how much this will shorten required shutter speeds to shoot moving subjects that are not blurred.

For perched birds/bats it may be doable, for moving birds/bat I wouldn't get my hope up......

That was very well stated, thank you. I'm still digesting the physical principles. I've noticed that the Owls here begin their passes over the fields at twilight, while there is still quite a bit of light. Also, we have moonlit nights, with or without a high cloud cover, which diffuses the moonlight and can actually make it much brighter. There are many old farms with out buildings and woods bordering pasture land, where roosts exist for still shots. I can network with folks some and try to discover them. I like the idea of augmenting twilight or morning light with infrared, bathing an area. I think perhaps a shorter, wider lens with a faster aperture on a full frame in low light might be wiser? It could crop well? You said that DSLR sensors, if converted are actually quicker for autofocus? My only real experience is with my little micro 4/3rds and I was thinking shutterless would be quicker. I only use it with a re-purposed telescope as a prime lens for perched birds, manual focus. However, I found a very nicely priced old full frame Canon 5D that would be a good candidate for conversion. I wouldn't need the most expensive lenses out there for this experiment. I imagine that the lower pixel count is less important in IR only photography. I was wanting to do this for some day time, hobby art photos also. In the Summer, or nesting season, it's possible to catch them day hunting. I wanted to try that last year but have been distracted. - Again... thanks for your response. I will re-read, read more, and chew on this a bit. I'm not dissuaded really. This sort of thing is fun.

Checking the few samples I have left, the furthest I successfully managed to get a reasonable moving sharp, auto focussed image in true dark was about 30 feet, the limiting factor was the power of the IR spotlight I used. If the subject moved towards you, you could zoom the lens to a wider angle but my spot had a fixed angle so I ended up with an overexposed disc surrounded by darkness.

In order to extract the maximum image information from a weak light source the camera turned up the effective ISO to something that was definitely very noisy! Modern kit should be imeasureably better?

The AF was a bit sluggish but could keep up with a wandering dog, but definitely no use for a moving owl.

Shooting in the late afterglow about the middle of November at about 5:30 in the evening there was enough light for IR photography without additional lighting. Bright moonlight also worked.

When it gets really dark the only way you are going to get results without IR lighting is by using sensors that go deeper into the IR than anything I have used (heat sensitive) and/or photomultiplier technology.

The only exception that was affordable were some of Sony's early compact digital still cameras that apparently had immense IR capability. Legend has it that they were discontinued after someone discovered that on a bright day certain clothing was transparent to the frequencies of IR light that they could reach.

IR filters on non-converted cameras is definitely best for still lifes of concrete bridges which are unlikely to move much over time.

I think a lot of us will be very interested in how you get on.

It's going to be a while

Maybe not too long - I'm looking at a super cheap 5D very soon - Of course there's probably a reason it's so cheap, I'm sure. The up side is it comes with a compatible 200mm lens. I may even attempt the conversion myself at that price, (200 US). I think the guy isn't a photographer. He didn't seem to know much about it.

The fields I know of, where the owls come out to cruise for rodents and small rabbits every night, would be a good spot to illuminate the field, then get low with the tripod, point the camera up and wait. They go back and forth over this 30 acre long field surrounded by woods, length ways all night.... just about 20 meters up from the earth. These are good sized owls. I don't know the species. We also have a bicycle trail that traverses a wetland, right up the middle of our valley here, which is now, largely industrial. There is a tremendous amount of prey, many owls, coyotes etc. That would be a good place to cruise on a bike. I have huge owls that cruise my river, where I live, on a nightly basis. They would be impossible to catch probably, without flash and still, they are over water, going someplace fast.

I think this will be a hunting project requiring patience and time... going out on moonlit nights only, when it's either clear and crisp or lightly overcast. In the interim periods I can search around, talk to people, find roosting sites. I'm retired. Winters can be a bit dull in the suburbs.

I'm still thinking wide lens, but with that full frame now, relying on a huge aperture, blowing up and cropping for detail, more than a long lens. That way the IR doesn't have to work so hard, no? Portable, battery powered, augmentation lights are a thought too. Nothing too big. This ain't Hollywood.

Thanks again.

PS - I have a prurient interest in those Sony's of antiquity.

Comments are in color

SeattleDan said:

You said that DSLR sensors, if converted are actually quicker for autofocus?
COMMENT: If AF works at all with IR it should work better as more IR Light hits sensor or AF module. On the sensor more IR will reach it that is otherwise blocked by the Highpass filter in front of the sensor, however this filter has been replaced with a IR filter. That's why on a converted cam no IR filter is in front of the lens that dims viewfinder and light hitting the AF module located somewhere within the viewfinder light path. As far as AF in general is concerned I said that since most current full frame bodies are considered Pro or at least advanced amateur material they have faster AF modules and processors in them than the consumer oriented DX models. The question that still remains is if sufficient IR hits the AF module and if it can "see" and work with IR light, and/or the sensor to allows AF with the availbale IR light. Otherwise you are in the same boot like having a f8 lens on a dull day in front of the cam when AF is also is very unlikely to work reliably if at all. IR photography is not nightvision imaging. IR photography shows us the world just in the color IR that we can't see with our bare eyes! Nigh vision devices work differently!


My only real experience is with my little micro 4/3rds and I was thinking shutterless COMMENT: mirrorless?would be quicker.

COMMENT: People I know use Liveview on their converted dSLRs to focus (manually) and they are all Landscape guys

I only use it with a re-purposed telescope as a prime lens for perched birds, manual focus. COMMENT: telescopes or spotting scopes will not give you an faster f-stop than f8 - 11, can you AF on those? However, I found a very nicely priced old full frame Canon 5D that would be a good candidate for conversion. I wouldn't need the most expensive lenses out there for this experiment. COMMENT: unfortunately long and fast lenses fall into this category

Click to expand...

Exactly - With the full frame I would use a native lens, not the scope. I did read some more and found that prime lenses just don't get very long, except perhaps the canon 400mm L series, but as you've established, it's just not going to work... not do-able. Sorry for the confusion but that was the purpose of the thread yes? Yes, mirrorless. I'm in love with the bird images; not a birder, except my back yard guys and what I find snooping the wetlands around Puget Sound... just admiring them. Obviously not a photographer either. I'm learning, if slowly.

I like the idea of the Canon Full Frame, but shopping, I found that the FF 5D IIs are only a skootch more expensive than the Classics, used. I wouldn't want to convert one of those because it has so much virtue as it is. There are billions of used Canon lenses, native to the camera available, up and down the scale, quality wise and price wise. Whereas with this mirrorless, the lenses are overpriced and rare-ish, used. On the other hand the little micro 4/3rds body I own, isn't worth much. I'm thinking now, it's more of a candidate for conversion, really. Also, it seems in flight IR is just beyond my ken, a pipe dream, and I'll be stalking roosters, mammals, insects, with my smaller camera, manual focus, using adapters. It sounds like fun too.

See? I'm learning. I was on this board annoying people with the dumbest queries for a year, but for a couple of years now, I've been away from the forum, capturing images that are very satisfying for me as a consequence. Now I want to do this. And maybe it's time for me to step up my game. I'm not getting in flight shots with the scope. The Canon with a native lens could make that happen, and I want to get out more.

Thank you.