Since our G3 has the laser focus shouldn't it be able to see at night?. Night vision uses IR light which the laser focus puts out. Now all we need is an app to process the IR light from our laser focus an boom we have REAL night visiovision not like those fake android apps. The best part about it is only our G3 are capable of doing it.. Take that Apple and Samsung.
Afaik to use IR the camera sensor itself would need to be able to capture the light emited in the IR spectrum. This is pure speculation right here since I havent read on how the laser autofocus works, however I do believe it it only used to measure the distance to automatically adjust focus tpfor that distance. Emiting IR and capting/reading the IR is 2 different things.
Also, I can clearly see the laser autofocus as a red dot (not very smart, but SCIENCE). So the I'm not quite sure that the autofocus module can even detect IR.
And add to that, we're surrounded by IR. Emitting and being able to capture ad process the infrared spectrum around us with a sensor that was made for the visible spectrum (400-800nm) would be impossible to do unless it can also detect longer wavelengths (IR).
Tl; dr: Can't be done. Laser is red light, not IR. No infrared receiver/sensor. Camera sensor can't detect IR.
PS: Sorry if this is a bit hard to understand. I'm used to explaining physics in french lol
macdaddie87 said:
Since our G3 has the laser focus shouldn't it be able to see at night?. Night vision uses IR light which the laser focus puts out. Now all we need is an app to process the IR light from our laser focus an boom we have REAL night visiovision not like those fake android apps. The best part about it is only our G3 are capable of doing it.. Take that Apple and Samsung.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1) Laser autofocus if a point source. It's ray is very focused and weak. Besides, it's in visible spectrum (though quite close to IR).
2) Our camera has an inbuilt IR filter. Until it's removed, it won't see in IR.
YaDr said:
1) Laser autofocus if a point source. It's ray is very focused and weak. Besides, it's in visible spectrum (though quite close to IR).
2) Our camera has an inbuilt IR filter. Until it's removed, it won't see in IR.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Re point 2):
I don't believe that is true.
I use the g3 camera to verify that my IR emitters are working. The IR emitters operate outside of the visible spectrum and I can't see them. Point the g3 camera at them and boom they're visible. Test it now with your TV's remote control.
I cannot speak to point 1). However, I believe the threads OP is right, the tech is in place and all that is needed is:
a) someone capable of writing an app to exploit it; and maybe possibly,
b) an IR emitter LED array (perhaps built into a case or a clip-on attachment) to address point 1). To that point, the camera flash is an LED (light emitting diode) and therefore, by changing the input voltage can emit light of any colour in the visible spectrum; and I submit - should also be able to emit light in the IR spectrum.
Related
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?
Has anyone been able to work with the infared cameras in the S4? If anyone could figure out how to use them we would have some seriously awesome uses at our fingertips. Why has no-one paid attention to these sensors? One is clearly an optical camera!
Sent from my Galaxy S4 i337m
IR as in the IR on the end of the phone? It's pointing in a different direction than the camera.
On the front of the phone the two ir sensors one is an optical camera. . They are just left of the front facing camera
Its what samsung uses for the air gestures. ..
Sent from my Galaxy S4 i337m
Don't know why this was moved, people need to be working on this it isn't really a question
Sent from my Galaxy S4 i337m
It was moved because its a question. I count two question marks. It'd be different if you're sharing information such as links as to how to utilize them (source code?) (Hardware information to the device?).
Sent from my GT-I9505G using Tapatalk 2
Okay well anyways this needs to be addressed. Freaking IR Camera not being used.. Air gestures are a useless feature for such a useful piece of hardware!
Sent from my Galaxy S4 i337m
MavereXx said:
Okay well anyways this needs to be addressed. Freaking IR Camera not being used.. Air gestures are a useless feature for such a useful piece of hardware!
Sent from my Galaxy S4 i337m
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's an ir sensor, not a camera. It doesn't have the resolution to do anything but sense heat.
Wow... IR does not sense heat. This is not a camera. An infrared camera is a camera that detects IR. So... Both the front facing and rear facing camera can detect IR. Just point your remote for your TV at them.
IR is invisible to the human eye. It is a lightwave. It does not have anything to do with heat. Please read up on this stuff before posting false info.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
graydiggy said:
Wow... IR does not sense heat. This is not a camera. An infrared camera is a camera that detects IR. So... Both the front facing and rear facing camera can detect IR. Just point your remote for your TV at them.
IR is invisible to the human eye. It is a lightwave. It does not have anything to do with heat. Please read up on this stuff before posting false info.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It sure does, you need to do a little more research.
Let me rephrase.
The S4 does not have infrared thermal detection camera's. It has an infrared blaster and an IR blaster/receiver.
The IR blaster/receiver does not detect heat of any kind. What it does is put out light that when interrupted by an object on any kind has the light reflected back sending a signal to do whatever action depending on the motion.
Thermal IR is a very costly technology that is completely impractical and stupid in a phone. Any change in temperature would cause undesirable actions to be carried out.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Yes I agree
MavereXx said:
Okay well anyways this needs to be addressed. Freaking IR Camera not being used.. Air gestures are a useless feature for such a useful piece of hardware!
Sent from my Galaxy S4 i337m
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do agree with you here. It is a powerful feature. If the infrared camera had no real resolution then it would not be able to detect gestures. Also there would be no reaosn to have the emitte be offset from the reciever. This is usually used to determine the depth of objects, kind of like the eyes are setup. Also there would be no real way to detect eye movement.
You will also notice that the three sensors are placed in the same fasion as an Xbox Kinect. This would be the front picture camera (used for pictures only), the paired IR camera and Color camera next to eachother on the right, and the IR emitter offset to the right.
It shoudl be possible to generate low resolution depth images, but the main problem here is the view range. If you have ever viewed an infared cameras output you will find that the falloff of the IR is quite high, meaning that you might only be able to detect depth for a few inches or foot from the top surface of the device. You would need a much more powerful IR emitter to detect depth past a fopot or so. If you use a kinect, you will notice that the IR Emitter is quite large and powerful. Still worth investigating.
Hi,
I like to take videos and picture of laser show effects, I have done that for years without any problem.
However I got my brand new LG G2 took one 2 minutes video and ended up with about 30 scattered group of dead pixels on the CCD sensor... never happened with my galaxy S2 or galaxy S3. I was about 10meters from the laser projector, it was not very powerful (only 500mw RGB projector with 30kpps galvos, wide beam (~1cm diameter at 10meters)), there was a lot of fog, there was no direct still laser beam on the ccd, only fast moving patterns, the laser could have been on the ccd no more than a few milliseconds.
Maybe higher megapixel sensors are more sensitive? this is quite worrying, I know many discos that have much stronger lasers than that and I see people take pictures/movies all the time. Also, would direct sunlight burn the sensor as well?
Anyway, I got it exchanged under warranty no question asked...
David.
I don't talk about own experience, but from what I understand will every camera sensor be damaged when directly exposed to laser, or long exposure of the sun. Whether it is a expensive dslr, compact camera or mobile phone.
My guess is that the sensor was briefly directly exposed to one or more lasers in your case.
Skickat från min LG-D802 via Tapatalk
are you using an aftermarket camera? all aftermarket video recording shows dead pixels for some reason. the stock LG camera app doesn't. it makes no sense, but everybody is able to recreate the issue for the most part.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
The highlighted thing about g5 plus was also the reason for bad camera. The 1.7 aperture and wide angle camera are the cause here. Though it is good for shots within a certain distance like 10-15 feet. But any further the pictures loose sharpness and gets noisy due to which moto decided to use high denoising due to which the photos look soft. My father's redmi 4 clicks better distance pictures than this. It has 2.0 aperture and little less wide angle lens.
Don't forget that G5 Plus have the same camera sensor as HTC U11 or Asus Zenfone 4 (which takes good pictures on stock software).
Worse photo quality is caused by software (Motorola/Lenovo screw it up).
Did you tried any mods/apps? You can find a lot of these, but I suggest you to try Google camera app port.
.czarodziej said:
Don't forget that G5 Plus have the same camera sensor as HTC U11 or Asus Zenfone 4 (which takes good pictures on stock software).
Worse photo quality is caused by software (Motorola/Lenovo screw it up).
Did you tried any mods/apps? You can find a lot of these, but I suggest you to try Google camera app port.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I use bacon camera on stock Android without root.
I disabled noise reduction and use hdr with manual mode and stable hands to get though grainy but nice pictures. Though the app is not perfect but it works
When I first got the G5+ I thought the camera was too dark... While a lower aperture may help in low light shots it does cause a bit of trouble for highly illuminated scenes.
HDR does compensate but it's nothing like HDR+ from Google.
Plus, terrible sharpen and overdone Noise Reduction excessive Color NR.
I felt quite dissapointed comparing it to my old Titan (G2)
Anyone tried to mod the camera to enable debug mode? You can disable noise reduction from there
ugupta100 said:
The highlighted thing about g5 plus was also the reason for bad camera. The 1.7 aperture and wide angle camera are the cause here. Though it is good for shots within a certain distance like 10-15 feet. But any further the pictures loose sharpness and gets noisy due to which moto decided to use high denoising due to which the photos look soft. My father's redmi 4 clicks better distance pictures than this. It has 2.0 aperture and little less wide angle lens.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Coming from an old school enthusiast of photography background - you're aperture on your lens (in this case f1.7) isn't going to cause noise - that's a function of the sensor. A lot changed when we went from film to digital sensors, but the impact of the f number of the lens did not.
You might be on to something with the with loss of sharpness though. Typically a fixed focal length lens is at it's sharpest at it's only setting... but they very well could have forked this up.
Given that the camera does pretty adequately with other camera software or other hacks - I don't think it's a hardware issue or lens issue. It could be a cut rate sensor...
It could also just be that whomever chose the default settings for this camera did a bad job
pwag said:
Your aperture on your lens (in this case f1.7) isn't going to cause noise - that's a function of the sensor. A lot changed when we went from film to digital sensors, but the impact of the f number of the lens did not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What about shadows in bright scenes such as outdoor scenery?
I mean, wouldn't lens aperture like f2.2 preserve more of these details?
That's a function of the film/sensor.
Your f number controls light and the depth of field (area that's in focus) - a smaller f number is more desirable because it allows more light to the film/sensor.
The only thing different here than fine that I can see is the size/diameter of the lens related to the f number. A larger f number, like f 8 or f16 increases the depth of field and sharpness, but at the cost of light hitting the film/sensor. That results in a longer exposure time.
A wide open f stop means more light and shorter exposure times.
One thing we gained with sensors over film is a wider range between highlights and shadows... You could get more shadows and more highlights. Film could get only so much of that before shadows went black and highlights blew out to white. But you still have a limited range. You can't get it all. In order to keep the highlights from going completely white you have to trade off some of the shadow range.
It's early and I'm probably explaining this horribly. Your spectrum between black and white or shadows and highlights is very long. But your camera sensors capability can only encompass a range of that spectrum. If the spectrum were a line of shades of grey from black to white that was, say, 10 units long, the range you could get in one image might be six units long. You've gotta give up somcombo of four units either at the black end of the spectrum or the light side.
If the cameras loaing details in the shadows that's because it's opting to the highlight/light end of the range.
So lens doesn't play a huge role in what chunk of the spectrum the film/sensor can encompass. But does play a role in how quickly the sensor can collect that info. Higher f number = smaller amounts of light on the sensor = longer exposure times.
My guess would be that the sensor or software is biased toward highlights because it results in faster exposures making life easier for snap shots and selfies.
M1810 said:
Anyone tried to mod the camera to enable debug mode? You can disable noise reduction from there
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you guys paid attention for once on this XDA, you might have seen my damn thread or the chromatixx thread https://forum.xda-developers.com/g5-plus/how-to/workaround-noise-reduction-t3744031
https://forum.xda-developers.com/g5-plus/themes/modcamera-aggressive-sharpening-noise-t3604458
If I'm posting in the wrong place I'm sorry, I bought a galaxy s10+ May 5th and I noticed a small noise when changing the camera open from 1.5 to 2.4 and from 2.4 to 1.5, it makes a low and different noise, I wanted to know if it is common of the device that annoying little noise or if it is some type of defect, I am from Brazil and I have the version SM-G975F.
Perfectly normal.
cpufrost said:
Perfectly normal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the telephoto lens is raised when the aperture goes to 2.4, is it normal too?
rodrigoduarteh said:
the telephoto lens is raised when the aperture goes to 2.4, is it normal too?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's perfectly normal, the clicky noise is the variable aperture mechanism.
Telephoto only has F2.4, if you try to use the telephoto lens in a dark place it will automatically switch to cropped F1.5 on the standard camera, that's why you see the view changing a bit.
Corv0 said:
It's perfectly normal, the clicky noise is the variable aperture mechanism.
Telephoto only has F2.4, if you try to use the telephoto lens in a dark place it will automatically switch to cropped F1.5 on the standard camera, that's why you see the view changing a bit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
try to see the application of the camera and switch to the dynamic focus, the camera without being the variable opening moves, I find this mt strange I'm almost asking for the replacement of the device,
puts it in the dynamic focus mode and looks behind the device and sees if the telephoto lens of a "jumped"
edit 1 :
I'm asking a lot of questions to make sure that it's common because I'm afraid to ask for the appliance to change,
I appreciate the answers and understanding.
rodrigoduarteh said:
try to see the application of the camera and switch to the dynamic focus, the camera without being the variable opening moves, I find this mt strange I'm almost asking for the replacement of the device,
puts it in the dynamic focus mode and looks behind the device and sees if the telephoto lens of a "jumped"
edit 1 :
I'm asking a lot of questions to make sure that it's common because I'm afraid to ask for the appliance to change,
I appreciate the answers and understanding.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You mean that it physically moves?
I have the same, the telephoto lenses move by a bit when the main camera changes aperture, but it only moves between the same two positions, I think it's nothing to worry about, it doesn't really have room to move anywhere else since the 3 cameras are locked together, I remember noticing the same on all retail units, don't worry about it unless it looks misaligned or pictures start to look distorted.
rodrigoduarteh said:
try to see the application of the camera and switch to the dynamic focus, the camera without being the variable opening moves, I find this mt strange I'm almost asking for the replacement of the device,
puts it in the dynamic focus mode and looks behind the device and sees if the telephoto lens of a "jumped"
edit 1 :
I'm asking a lot of questions to make sure that it's common because I'm afraid to ask for the appliance to change,
I appreciate the answers and understanding.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tried what you said, switching from normal to dynamic focus while looking at the lenses, I can se the main camera switching aperture (opens an closes) and the camera telephoto lens move a little bit (like a shake) dont know if that is the stabilization part of the lens activating
mathab said:
Tried what you said, switching from normal to dynamic focus while looking at the lenses, I can se the main camera switching aperture (opens an closes) and the camera telephoto lens move a little bit (like a shake) dont know if that is the stabilization part of the lens activating
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The main camera's aperture mechanism is magnet based and it seems to interact with the telephoto's OIS, also magnet based, they shake each other but no big deal.
You can try it yourself with a strong magnet, you'll see it pulling/pushing the telephoto module depending on the angle.