IR camera - 7 UFO's seen.

Originally posted by riggs2099
No matter what you say...these guys will not see the truth. Like I said before anyone with half a brain can tell these are birds. IR reads heats signatures and I do believe birds give that off...unless bird are cold blooded..

infrared (IR)cameras which allow inspectors to view thermographic images – that is heat

THANK YOU!

Just to show you how little IR a street lamp puts out and a demonstration that this camera I am using is not to be confused with a thermal imaging unit.


Close up zoom.



The point being is that to be seen it either has to be illuminated by a strong IR source and highly reflective, or produce its own IR source for me to be able to capture it on the camera sensor because I am not using an IR search light mounted camera here, just a plain old converted G6 and thus am not illuminating my targets.

Originally posted by TravisT

Originally posted by riggs2099
No matter what you say...these guys will not see the truth. Like I said before anyone with half a brain can tell these are birds. IR reads heats signatures and I do believe birds give that off...unless bird are cold blooded..

infrared (IR)cameras which allow inspectors to view thermographic images – that is heat

THANK YOU!

There are two people on the board who do not understand the difference between IR capture and thermal imaging cameras.

reply to post by D4rk Kn1ght


What filter are you using? I asked before that post, but I guess you didnt see it?

And no, thermal imaging is very much IR. Where are you getting your info?

[edit on 29-10-2008 by TravisT]

I'm just trying to understand what an IR camera does or doesn't do, then maybe I can make some decisions about what these hot pixels might represent. So, considering the blackbird picture yet again...



What's radiating IR the more...the bird or the trees?
I assume it's the trees because they are whiter/brighter.
If that's so, how come the trees are 'hotter' than the bird?
Surely a warm blooded bird has a higher external temperature than an inanimate object like a tree?
Is this radiated IR simply reflected IR from heat sources around the environment and the sun?
If that's correct, why are the trees reflecting more heat per square inch than the blackbird? I thought dull black surfaces (like a blackbird) absorb and radiate more eficiently than a semi-shiny suface such as a leaf.
If all I'm assuming is correct, why isn't the blackbird seen as white in the photo?
The reason I suspect is that the IR camera is only 'seeing' the shorter end of the IR spectral band. In other words, there's some visible red in there as well and that's being included in the greyscale output.

Also, shouldn't an IR camera see all objects in total visual darkness provided they are radiating at least some heat no matter how small? I'll be pleased if someone will put me right on these points 'cos I'm unsure what looking at the world in the Infra Red can add to what we can already see in the visible.
Many thanks for your insights.

WG3

Thermography.

Thermography

Please go read this and then get back to me. Understand that there are huge differences between what i have and what produces those thermographic images.

reply to post by D4rk Kn1ght

"IR capture"
"Since this type of shooting relies on heat for recording the images"
"If you're not familiar with IR shooting"
photographybydon.com...
This photography expert talking about Ir capture in particular and how it works. So anything else you and your friends like to disagree with.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by riggs2099]

You people are now failing to distinguish between Near IR and Thermal, not sure why because they look nothing like each other and one cannot be converted to the other.

That IR camera will not pick up a bird at that range with a high IR signature, YES a thermal imaging camera would because thats what it does, NEAR IR isnt designed for it.

A human being has internal heat but they radiate a TINY amount, which is why under near IR you dont see glowing humans either.

Im not sure why I bother. The pictures really speak for themsleves, the birds clearly dont glow

Im not sure why you are bothering, yes in the most scientific sense theormography could be called IR. In cameras however it would be called thermal imaging and an standard IR camera is using near IR, very different.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by silver6ix]

reply to post by waveguide3


The tree is reflecting huge amounts of IR from the sun, and hence it has taken that white appearence. The bird is not reflecting much and thus stays dark; thats not to say all dark things do not reflect alot of IR back outwards, as shown by the image of the darg green military bergen I took. Under normal light its dark, but under IR its bright white as it is highly IR reflective.

Please also know that this is not a thermal imaging unit. They are a huge leap away from what i am using.

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
Thermography.

Thermography

Please go read this and then get back to me. Understand that there are huge differences between what i have and what produces those thermographic images.

HAHA. I love Wiki
en.wikipedia.org...

Come back and talk to me before you know what you're talking about. Yeah, there is a difference, hence, what filter you are using. But no, Thermo is still very much IR. Take a look.

I love it, your link posts me to wikis IR camera link.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by TravisT]

reply to post by riggs2099



A working link would be good.
Cheers.

Originally posted by TravisT
HAHA. I love Wiki
en.wikipedia.org...

Come back and talk to me before you know what you're talking about. Yeah, there is a difference, hence, what filter you are using. But no, Thermo is still very much IR. Take a look.

You are simply proving the point. Thermal is nothing like near IR and teh average primary school kid could tell you that. Infact that camera COULDNT be converted to thermal imaging. A thermal imaging camera will set you back 5k.

Its called NEAR IR if you want to be technical, however its simply known as IR in photogrophy terms and the very different THERMAL IMAGING is known as thermal imaging.

We arent talking whih waves are being using we are talking the capabilities of the camera taking the photo, its near IR, it wont pick up something glowing like that unless its radiating and IR heat spot.

A human has more heat than a bird and yet a human wont glow in near IR either. A bird at range shouldnt even be visible in near IR.
neither of the two produces images that are even remotely similar.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by silver6ix]

reply to post by silver6ix

AND AGAIN, WHAT FILTER IS HE USING, I NEED TO KNOW TO SHOW YOU EXAMPLES LIKE I HAVE SAID ALREADY. IM SURE YOU DIDNT SEE CAUSE IT WANT IN CAPS, THEREFORE, I HAVE TO CAPS THIS POST CAUSE YOU HAVENT NOTICE WHAT I HAVE SAID ABOUT 5-6 TIMES.

Thanks.

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
Just to show you how little IR a street lamp puts out and a demonstration that this camera I am using is not to be confused with a thermal imaging unit.

This is not a thermal image. Look at it. There is no thermal image here.

Originally posted by silver6ix
A human has more heat than a bird and yet a human wont glow in near IR either. A bird at range shouldnt even be visible in near IR.
neither of the two produces images that are even remotely similar.

Actually, a bird is (on average) 6-10 degrees warmer than a human depending on species.

Originally posted by TravisT
reply to post by silver6ix

 

AND AGAIN, WHAT FILTER IS HE USING, I NEED TO KNOW TO SHOW YOU EXAMPLES LIKE I HAVE SAID ALREADY. IM SURE YOU DIDNT SEE CAUSE IT WANT IN CAPS, THEREFORE, I HAVE TO CAPS THIS POST CAUSE YOU HAVENT NOTICE WHAT I HAVE SAID ABOUT 5-6 TIMES.

Thanks.

No, it has nothing to do with the filter. The camera is NEAR IR.

Which part of it cannot be modified to thermal didnt I make clear? You cant make a near IR camera thermal, it WILL NOT take thermal imaging?

Is any of this getting across here?

NEAR IR uses CCD imagining, THERMAL uses a microbolometer.

You dont seem to get it, your near IR camera WILL NEVER take thermal images, you cant covnert it, you cant filter it. You need to BUY a thermal camera which as I said will set you back 5k.

Im not sure how else to get that across to you. His camera is IR and will never be thermal.

I really dont ge why im havign to argue this point. Why dont you go try find a thermal camera and then find an IR camera and tell me how many $$$$ difference there is in the price tag?

Theres no filter, for it, you either have a thermal camera or you dont, simple.

[edit on 29-10-2008 by silver6ix]

Animal temps

Hank is very right; should I get a thermal imaging unit they would glow better than humans. I don't, so they won't.

There seems to be a very basic miscomunication happening here.. maybe I can help.

DK, you said that the lens was swapped out, correct? What was it replaced with? Regular camera lens have a filter that blocks IR light. Your camera needs to have a filter that blocks out visible light while allowing IR light.

I hope this helps.