The cheap camera lens seems to have no IR filter.
So this may account for a lot of the blue fringes we see around bright spots in the photograps.
seems to be a cost saving tactic on many cheap digital camera's
The infrared light is detected as blue light , but has a different refraction index, so it shows up as an out of focus blue fringe around bright objects.
I have included a picture shining an remote to the camera to show the effect.
The remote emmits no visible light , yet the camera detects a blue lightsource.
If you place a filter in front of the lens that filter out the VISIBLE light you can even make an "X-ray" camera out it for extra fun stuff.
Im not gonna explain that any further here , just look it up on google with words like "sony" "x-ray" "camera" and maybe "clothes" :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
bk227865 said:
If you place a filter in front of the lens that filter out the VISIBLE light you can even make an "X-ray" camera out it for extra fun stuff.
Im not gonna explain that any further here , just look it up on google with words like "sony" "x-ray" "camera" and maybe "clothes" :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Spoilsport ! :wink:
actually i've never seen a mobile phone camera or any pc-webcam that has an ir-filter. they all show ir-light. :wink:
I would go as far as to say: you are all wrong!
Our cameras have IR filters.
All webcams do!
The only problem is; it's not good enough..
Get yourself a cheap logitech camera, dismantle it, remove a small square piece of glass.
Connect the camera and see how much interference IR is giving!
The filters remove IR "radiation" light, but not enough to dampen a IR remote signal..
I completly disassembled two webcams until now and there was no such thing unless the lens itself has ir-filter capabilitys. that doesn't have to mean that that's the standart case, but the pictures the cams took looked pretty much the same even with all crap removed. I don't think cheap cams (and pretty much all cams are cheap unless it's a digicam for 200$ or more) include an ir-filter.
bk227865 said:
If you place a filter in front of the lens that filter out the VISIBLE light you can even make an "X-ray" camera out it for extra fun stuff.
Im not gonna explain that any further here , just look it up on google with words like "sony" "x-ray" "camera" and maybe "clothes" :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you take that with your wizard ?
NexNo said:
I completly disassembled two webcams until now and there was no such thing unless the lens itself has ir-filter capabilitys. that doesn't have to mean that that's the standart case, but the pictures the cams took looked pretty much the same even with all crap removed. I don't think cheap cams (and pretty much all cams are cheap unless it's a digicam for 200$ or more) include an ir-filter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, the IR filter I picked out if my Logitech quick cam looks like a normal piece of glass, but if you see it from the side, you either get a green/turquoise color or red/pink color from it..
Look at your lenses; got the same color reflections?
nope. no reflections at the lens as far as I can see it. and no little piece of glass either. maybe logitech does that since it's a more expensive cam? mine was really cheap.. reeeally cheap ^^ like 8 euros or so. an old "pencam" that I teared appart got rid of the plastic case and "built" a new case out of sticky tape looks like a phreaky cocoon but is 1/3 the size of the original.
knowsleyroader said:
Did you take that with your wizard ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes,
Some remote controls have a black looking piece of plastic in front.
That is actually a filter that let's IR pass through but not visible light.
So i demollished an old remote control and with the makeshift black plastic filter taped in front of the lens i took a picture. Then i took a regular picture for comparison.
As you can see the leaves on the tree's are much lighter when viewed in IR. That is because they reflect IR radiation , (protecting themself from getting sunburned)
Ideally the sky in the IR image should register as very dark blue , but too much normal red light is seeping through the plastic filter.
LOL, all cameras I've test since I was a child can detect IR beams from a remote. no matter if they have IR filters or not... No I'm 30 years old :twisted:
Interesting... I get the same thing with my Charmer camera.
However, I was trying to shine my IR Remote to act as a torch light in total darkness, but doesn't seems to work. I need a much stronger IR light source.
When our son was born I bought a wireless video camera. Then after doing some research I removed the IR filter (there is a professional name for it, can't remember) and bought myself 8 powerfull IR leds, connected them to 12V.
It was like daylight in the middle of the night ;O)
The IR sensitivity of CMOS and CCD generaly doesn't go to much down the spectrum. Heat from a body is below that range.
Cheers
http://www.kaya-optics.com/products/overview.shtml
For a good, basic explanation of NIR
tweakradje said:
When our son was born I bought a wireless video camera. Then after doing some research I removed the IR filter (there is a professional name for it, can't remember) and bought myself 8 powerfull IR leds, connected them to 12V.
It was like daylight in the middle of the night ;O)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, that's what I call surveillance :twisted: ... big parent is watching you... ^^
bk227865 said:
The cheap camera lens seems to have no IR filter.
So this may account for a lot of the blue fringes we see around bright spots in the photograps.
seems to be a cost saving tactic on many cheap digital camera's
The infrared light is detected as blue light , but has a different refraction index, so it shows up as an out of focus blue fringe around bright objects.
I have included a picture shining an remote to the camera to show the effect.
The remote emmits no visible light , yet the camera detects a blue lightsource.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A few days ago, I was making a photo of my laptop and when I looked into the camera, I saw a little light blinking what turns out to be the infrared port of my laptop, but it soesn't bother me at all, did not have any problems yest with the pictures I took.
bk227865 said:
knowsleyroader said:
Did you take that with your wizard ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes,
Some remote controls have a black looking piece of plastic in front.
That is actually a filter that let's IR pass through but not visible light.
So i demollished an old remote control and with the makeshift black plastic filter taped in front of the lens i took a picture. Then i took a regular picture for comparison.
As you can see the leaves on the tree's are much lighter when viewed in IR. That is because they reflect IR radiation , (protecting themself from getting sunburned)
Ideally the sky in the IR image should register as very dark blue , but too much normal red light is seeping through the plastic filter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So If I go to a boot sale and find any old type remote with a docking big brown/black front cover over the ir would that work ?
guys guys guys this will clear it all up ...
just read this
http://www.hoagieshouse.com/IR/
found here http://www.hackaday.com/entry/1234000110036028/
have fun browsing :wink:
any ideas how to remove IR filter from Wizard?
I've done that on nokia 3110c (destructive method) and on webcam MS vx1000(?) and there was the filter just sitting, no glue.
can be wizard modded? any ideas/hints/pictures/tutorials?
I am thinking of getting an MHL cable and Bluetooth keyboard/mouse sets.... but the 800X480 is a bit low for a casual PC.
On the other hand anyone tried LCD resolution to increase the resolution of SII and then MHL?
Not sure how useful it would be.... but definitely good fun
You can change the lcd density(not the resolution) from the default value of 240 to some lower value to get higher resolution like screen. Not sure about how the display will be when using mhl cable + this tweak.
Yeah... I imagine that MHL would just mirror the LCD screen unless it's playing a video... So......
I'm very impressed by the video capability of the note. Just tried out shooting at an event and the frame rate and sharpness was really good. However I want to improve it further as these are the problems I encountered.
1. Stability - definitely needs a stabilizer. Do those ebay phone brackets that have a tripod mount fit the Note? If they do I can screw in a monopod whose weight can act as the stabilizer. It'd be great if this mount had a hotshoe for an audio recorder too.
2. Exposure control - in fancy lighting situations the camera automatically adjusts exposure, and I don't want this. I want to be able to set a exposure setting manually and leave it at that. In addition, the exposure settings only offer +/-1 and +/-2. Sometimes in bright situations we need more. Can we go beyond these settings? And once we start recording there's no way to change the exposure control on the fly, is there?
3. Lenses - those cheap iphone wideangle and tele lenses look good but do they fit the note? The lens housing is square rather than round like on these lenses.
For a makeshift tripod try using one of those car suction holders. Works if you have a flat surface to stick it on.
Sent from my Galaxy Note using Tapatalk
I'm also interested in knowing how to open mp4 files created with the note's camera app. I checked the file and it contains avc h264 video, but I cannot open it in virtualdub at all. I get 'file does not have a video stream' errors, but they play fine in media player, so I'm sure I have the right codecs.
JulyDerek said:
For a makeshift tripod try using one of those car suction holders. Works if you have a flat surface to stick it on.
Sent from my Galaxy Note using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You want to make sure that your Note has a case for this suction cup as you do not even want to try and hook it to the battery cover out of fear that it might just peel right off.
I've noticed when I connect the N10 to my LCD TV with native resolution of 1368x768 using a micro-HDMI to HDMI cable that the image doesn't stretch all the way to the edge of the display. Instead it leaves black bars on either side of probably 75-100 pixels. Does anyone else notice this?? Is there a setting I'm missing to be able to scale the display to fill the entire screen?
Doesn't fill my TV either, the issue, I guess is that it's mirroring so it won't change aspect, that may be different for videos but I haven't tried.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
alfer said:
I've noticed when I connect the N10 to my LCD TV with native resolution of 1368x768 using a micro-HDMI to HDMI cable that the image doesn't stretch all the way to the edge of the display. Instead it leaves black bars on either side of probably 75-100 pixels. Does anyone else notice this?? Is there a setting I'm missing to be able to scale the display to fill the entire screen?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only way to change the aspect ratio is through your TV. My 50in Philips LCD HD, has settings option to change the display view. Maybe in later firmware updates they may include HDMI options through the device.
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
Yep, its the aspect ratio. TVs have standardized on 16:9. Android phones and 7" tablets are also 16:9, but since 10" tablets are meant to be held in landscape Google's set the standard to be 16:10 so the soft keys dont take too much of the display away from actual content.
Put in laymans terms, the Nexus has more height per width than your TV, so it either must use black bars, stretch, or crop. Black bars look the best of those options.
Good to know its not just me or my HDMI cable. If this issue is important to you to get resolved, please check out this link and star the issue. With enough votes Google might provide us more options to scale the mirrored output or select a custom resolution in a future release of Android.
It fills your screen when you watch a Movie or TV show though right?
So it is definitely possible for the Nexus to send the signal.
So I have a reversing camera hooked up to my unit, and it works fine for most situation, but if it is dark out and there is a source of light in the view of the camera it is hopeless, it completely blows out the entire image.
I am assuming that cameras don't get much higher quality - as they are limited to VGA. So I was wondering if its possible to install a higher quality USB camera instead, and hopefully solve this problem...
Only if you could find a converter box that will take the video from the USB and convert it CVBS on an RCA jack but then you're back to standard resolution. You could use a USB DVR camera and just have it look backwards but it won't switch the screen automatically when you go to reverse. This is all a bunch of hassles as you can see. They do sell better quality backup cameras they might be worth the extra money to you. I have to ask can't you just aim your camera a little bit lower so it doesn't catch the glare from the light. Maybe all you need is to add a little flap to the top to shield the lens from glare.
nic2k said:
Only if you could find a converter box that will take the video from the USB and convert it CVBS on an RCA jack but then you're back to standard resolution. You could use a USB DVR camera and just have it look backwards but it won't switch the screen automatically when you go to reverse. This is all a bunch of hassles as you can see. They do sell better quality backup cameras they might be worth the extra money to you. I have to ask can't you just aim your camera a little bit lower so it doesn't catch the glare from the light. Maybe all you need is to add a little flap to the top to shield the lens from glare.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had a feeling that was the answer!
I have a van so I don't have a rear view mirror, as such I use it when reversing for a bit more than just checking the closest meter or so - I like to be able to see if there are any posts or pedestrians.
So I guess my question now becomes... what is the best quality VGA reversing camera you can buy?