INFRARED ON THE CHEAP

We've all seen the articles stating that you can get otherworldly infrared effects by having a little irreversible surgery done to your DSLR sensor. Without a special filter that's mounted in front of the camera's CMOS sensor, infrared light would normally spoil your images. So, in order to invite infrared light in, the filter needs to be removed. Not willing to dedicate a DSLR to infrared-only, I looked for other ways to easily get on the infrared bandwagon.

As I still occasionally shoot with medium format black and white film, the obvious thing for me was to get some infrared-sensitive film and a recommended filter. This filter is a deep red filter that favours light with wavelengths of 720 nanometers or longer. If this is sounding too techie and out of your league - hang in there - I have a simple digital solution.

By taking that same filter and holding it in front of my CCD sensor-based point and shoot camera, I was astounded at how well the infrared effect came through. Now, in colour, the image does look ethereal, but predominantly red. My preference is to either switch the camera to monochrome before taking the shot, or convert to black and white after in software. After shooting the same scenes using this technique and then using the film camera with the same filter, the results are surprisingly similar.

The reason that the CCD sensor works is that it doesn't have the infrared-removing filter that's built onto CMOS sensors. So, by using a deep red filter in front of a CCD camera lens, you are filtering out much of the visible light and letting mainly infrared light hit the sensor. Using the filter in front of my CMOS-based DSLR camera, however, I verified that the infrared effect is not really achievable.

What about using smartphone cameras with this method? Unfortunately, the newer phones seem to be equipped with CMOS sensors, so they're generally not a good candidate.

You may be wondering by now what this "infrared effect" is that I've been blathering on about. Simply, if you take picture through a deep red filter onto either infrared film or a CCD sensor on a sunny day, the vegetation (leaves, grass) will appear white or pale. It gives the impression that frost or snow has settled on the trees and lawn. At the same time, the sky appears dark, giving a dramatic contrasty scene.

Have a look at the two images in this post, both shot in summer with my point and shoot camera and the deep red filter. Have a tripod handy, though. The filter gives 5-6 stops of attenuation, meaning exposures are going to be very long.

Lenses for the DSLR: Crop Factor and Image Circles

(Not to be confused with crop circles)

 

A few months ago, I wrote about how sensor size affects the way different cameras capture an image when using the same lens. To refine the topic a bit further, I’m going to introduce two terms: crop factor and image circles.

Why bother with this techno-babble? Well, as stated in the earlier article, if you now own a consumer DSLR with an APS-C sized sensor, chances are that when you want to replace it down the road, your next camera will have a full frame sensor. This means that the lenses you have now are going to behave differently on your future camera, or, worst case, will force you to buy at least one new lens.

Now for my definitions:

Crop Factor – The ratio of apparent magnification provided by the same lens when switching between two different-sized camera sensors.

For example, a lens on an APS-C sized sensor will produce an image that appears magnified by a factor of 1.6 times over the image captured by that same lens on a full frame sensor. The actual image projected by the lens is the same in both cases (note that the focal length of the lens is assumed to be fixed), but the smaller APS-C sensor sees fractionally less of the projected image than the full frame sensor. In effect, the APS-C sensor is ‘cropping’ the image, thereby giving the impression that it is magnifying part of the image.

Image Circle – The diameter of a circular image projected by a lens when focused on a surface. It is usually expressed in millimetres.

In this context, the lens is projecting the image from a scene in front of the camera onto the back of the camera. At the back of the camera is the sensor. In order for the image to fully cover the sensor, the image circle must be at least as large as the diagonal measurement of the sensor. Otherwise, we would see a darkening in the corners of the resulting image where the projected image didn’t fully cover the sensor. This is called vignetting.

One important fact to note is that lens manufacturers make two different types of lenses for DSLRs: full frame and digital-only. For example, Canon full frame lenses are designated EF and digital-only are designated EF-S. They may have exactly the same focal length, but the difference is that the full frame version projects a bigger image circle, more than sufficient to cover the full frame sensor. The full frame version works fine on both full frame and APS-C cameras, whereas the digital-only version would cause vignetting on the full frame camera. Note: while the mounts look the same on the EF and EF-S lenses, there is a protruding 'shoulder' on the EF-S lenses that prevents you from mounting them on full frame cameras.

Now, you would be tempted to think that using a full frame lens on an APS-C sensor when compared with the digital-only lens would result in apparent magnification, just like the crop factor, because the smaller sensor is only capturing part of the full frame lens image circle. An important difference, however, is that if you looked at the projected images from the full frame and digital-only lenses (with the same focal length) under the exact same conditions, an object in the scene would be projected at exactly the same size. Why? - because the full frame lens actually captures a wider field of view. In other words, putting the full frame lens on an APS-C camera will project peripheral information outside of the sensor, while the digital-only lens will not project that peripheral information but will adequately cover the sensor.

If that didn’t do it for you, here’s a scenario that might explain the difference between crop factor and image circle. Hopefully, the accompanying graphics will help:

1.  I have an APS-C sensor DSLR in front of me. I also have two lenses – both are 50 mm focal length, but one is designed for full frame and one is designed for digital-only. I have the camera set up on a tripod aimed at an object (X) which sits in the middle of the viewfinder. I try each of the lenses in turn and focus on the X. I notice that the X appears to be the same size in each case, and fills the frame from top to bottom. As long as the focal length on both lenses is the same, there is no change to the size of the image or the apparent angle of view in the captured image. The only difference is that the full frame lens is projecting a bigger image circle with more peripheral information (the dots) that the sensor doesn’t see anyway.

 

2.  I now take the full frame 50 mm lens and put it on a full frame sensor DSLR. The angle of view now appears wider than it did on the APS-C camera and the X is smaller (doesn’t fill the frame from top to bottom) by a factor of 1/1.6 (62.5%) because of crop factor in reverse. Saying it another way, the full frame lens now just covers the full frame sensor as opposed to the APS-C sensor which cropped the full frame lens image circle and caused apparent magnification. Again, focal length remained the same, but sensor size changed. Note that the full frame sensor captures some of the peripheral image (dots) that the APS-C sensor didn't.

 

3.  If I put the digital-only 50mm lens on the full frame camera (not generally possible as explained above), the object size is the same as in 2., but I see severe vignetting in the corners. This is because the image circle of the digital-only lens is too small for the full frame sensor.

To tie this discussion up with a nice ribbon, we can summarize where crop factor and image circle come into play as follows:

 

• Crop factor is a consideration when using the same lens on two different cameras with different sensor sizes.
• Image circle is a consideration when using two different lenses with the same focal length but different image circle sizes on the same camera.

Taking this one step further, what if you had a full frame DSLR, but you wanted to use a lens of the same focal length (ie. 50 mm) but with a bigger image circle than the full frame lens provided? Those of us geezers who used to use medium format film know that the lenses for those old cameras projected an even bigger image circle than full frame DSLR lenses because medium format film sizes were larger than a full frame sensor. So, as long as you were comfortable shooting in manual mode, you can adapt your medium format film lenses to your DSLR for reasonable cost. Why would you need a bigger image circle if the full frame lens covered your sensor? Well, with a bigger image circle, you can (with the right adapter) use tilt and shift functions over a wider range than you could with a full frame lens.

But tilting and shifting is another subject for another blog post….



Size matters – in sensors, that is.

When digital SLRs started to come into the market, they essentially replaced the 35mm film camera. In most cases, the lenses that fit your 35mm camera could now be used on the new digitals (from the same manufacturer, of course) without the need for any adapters. Sweet.

Those who made this transition noticed something right away. The 50mm focal length lens that gave a ‘normal’ angle of view on their film camera now acted like an 80mm lens, or slight telephoto, when attached to the digital SLR. In other words, the image was now magnified compared to using the same lens on the 35mm camera.

In some ways this was a benefit, because it meant that the telephoto lens you bought for your 35mm camera now reached a bit further on the digital SLR– about 1.6 times further. The downside was that the wide angle lens that used to work beautifully for landscapes on your 35mm wasn’t so wide anymore on the digital.

This difference is attributable to the size of the sensor in the digital camera. Most consumer SLRs use an APS-C size sensor, which is 22mm x 15mm. Compare that to 35mm film at 36mm x 24mm. Given the same lens projecting the same ‘image circle’ on the digital sensor  and the 35mm negative, the digital sensor only captures part of what the negative captures. Essentially, the digital image is magnified (by 1.6 times) since it’s like zooming in on a small part of the image circle.

For years now, professionals who could afford it have been using full frame digital SLRs (example – the Canon 5D) which use a 36mm x 24mm sensor, just like the 35mm negative size. While the manufacturers could have stuffed more pixels into this bigger sensor (and did so to an extent), the big benefit is that they can now make the pixels bigger.

Why? The bigger the pixel, the more light it can gather, meaning the camera will yield less ‘noise’ in the image in low light situations. Overall, the image is cleaner and yes, at a somewhat higher resolution. In fact, Nikon recently introduced the full frame D800 with an astonishing 36 megapixel sensor. Compare that to the Canon 5D’s 22 megapixel resolution or 18 megapixels on most consumer SLRs. Of course, file sizes bloom with higher resolution.

All of this is significant because the prices of full frame camera bodies are starting to slide below the $2000 price point. While APS-C and other similar size sensors kick-started the digital photography revolution, affordable full frames will eventually bring it full circle. The smaller sensors won’t disappear for a while yet, but those of us who came up through the film world will once again be able to shoot the way we used to – only with the immediacy of digital and a moderate size hole in our pocket.

Achtung! Dangerous Old Films

The images in this gallery were taken by my great-great uncle, Heinrich Schildknecht, an Austrian "alpine" photographer.




The 4"x5.75" negatives were given to me by his grandson when I met him in Europe several years ago. It's difficult to date them because the date that the photographer wrote on the envelope looks like it could either be 1919 or 1929. Now that I have a flatbed scanner with a transparency unit, I thought it was time to preserve them.

I remember asking his grandson whether or not he had his grandfather's complete collection of negatives. He replied "No, my grandfather's studio burned down". I'm not surprised.

To the best of my knowledge, the items he gave me are made with a cellulose nitrate base. Most articles you read about this type of film give dire warnings that they are extremely flammable. The typical advice is to copy them, then dispose of them properly.

Two of the many signs that films are made of cellulose nitrate are the tendency to curl and turn amber as they age. Have a look at the picture of my negs. They definitely exhibit these characteristics. The ones that curl the most seem to have a thicker base, while the flat ones are almost as thin as paper.

In some cases, the experts warn, the emulsion becomes sticky and gives off a toxic gas. Luckily, mine do not have this problem, although the emulsion is flaking in places.

There are several ways to test these films to determine whether or not they are cellulose nitrate, as outlined in this excellent article: http://bit.ly/aAKaQi. I decided to try the burn test with a strip of each of the thin and thick bases.

With the fire department on speed dial, I headed outside in the snow, far from the house and lit 'em up. Yup -the thick base burned very quickly and crackled a bit like a sparkler. The thin base was a bit more sluggish, but also burned fairly quickly.

The safe assumption is that these are cellulose nitrate bases, so I'll be doing the right thing and disposing after copying. I may even wait for a fireworks celebration and have my own backyard spectacle. If a reader more knowledgeable than I has more insight into these negs, I would appreciate a comment.

Amazingly, from the timeline in this document (http://bit.ly/d4ysrt), Kodak introduced an acetate safety film in 1908, but continued to produce cellulose nitrates until 1951. I can't speak for other manufacturers, though, but this seems to defy common sense!