Any infrared filter available for Mavic 2 Pro?

[offtheback]

Looking to shoot black and white infrared from the Mavic 2 Pro.Will desaturate in editing and go from there.A Hoya R72 works on a digital SLR.Not looking to convert the sensor,just use as came from factory.Image here with digital camera and R72 filter.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

If you're not converting the sensor (removing the hot mirror), no infrared is reaching it, so why call it infrared?

Using the R72 doesn't make it infrared, though it certainly modifies the visible light (wavelengths below infrared).

Chris

 

[Malcx]

Don't most cameras have an anti-IR filter inside them (i.e. blocks IR wavelength) so adding a filter over the lens to block out other light will result in a black image?

That's my recollection from tweaking webcams into "night vision" cameras a few years back anyway.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

Don't most cameras have an anti-IR filter inside them (i.e. blocks IR wavelength) so adding a filter over the lens to block out other light will result in a black image?

Yes, the IR "hot mirror" will keep all frequencies above a certain wavelength (including infrared) from reaching the sensor.

Though you won't get a black image with an R72, just an contrasty image ... which is FINE, but don't call it infrared.

Chris

PS: at least one conversion company (LifePixel or Kolari, I forget which), offers converted-camera Mavics for sale.

 

[SkyeHigh]

If you’re trying to achieve the IR effect then far better to do it in post with a less contrasty image.

 

[DanMan32]

FYI, IR is below visible light not above it. The name itself says it.
Infra meaning below
Red - the color at the lowest part of the visible light spectrum.

What's above visible light is ultraviolet.

So for a filter to be able to show only IR, it has to be a low pass filter, blocking all visible light. That's assuming there isn't already an IR blocking filter in place.

You can use a TV IR remote to test for sensitivity to IR.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

So for a filter to be able to show only IR, it has to be a low pass filter, blocking all visible light. That's assuming there isn't already an IR blocking filter in place.

Sorry, wrong direction (above, below, story of my life). But my main point was that infrared won't reach a sensor that has an IR blocking filter in front of it (as most sensors have without modification).

Chris

 

[DanMan32]

My Samsung S20 FE doesn't. I can see IR emissions from my TV remote.

Now that I think of it, it's UV filters that DJI cameras tend to have. At least thats the stock lens filter on a P3.

 

[offtheback]

Yes, the IR "hot mirror" will keep all frequencies above a certain wavelength (including infrared) from reaching the sensor.

Though you won't get a black image with an R72, just an contrasty image ... which is FINE, but don't call it infrared.

Chris

PS: at least one conversion company (LifePixel or Kolari, I forget which), offers converted-camera Mavics for sale.

I've done BW infrared film years ago and the R72 on a mirrorless camera gives a good headstart on producing a quasi infrared.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

My Samsung S20 FE doesn't. I can see IR emissions from my TV remote.

Now that I think of it, it's UV filters that DJI cameras tend to have. At least thats the stock lens filter on a P3.

No, there's a filter right over the sensor inside the camera, right along with the anti-aliasing filter. The screw-on filter UV filter on a P3 is not the same thing.

I have never seen any manufacture put a hot-mirror (anti-infrared filter) outside of a camera \ on a lens, unless it's hot mirror lens-mounted filter for full-spectrum converted cameras (so that you can take normal, visible like photography with a converted camera). I have both (full-spectrum and a screw on hot-mirror).

That a phone camera has no hot-mirror over its filter would not be a surprise to me. You might run the same check with your drone (hopefully a Mavic, not a Phantom). I have an IR flashlight, so I'll try it on my Mavic when I can find the it (the flashlight).

 

[Malcx]

My Samsung S20 FE doesn't. I can see IR emissions from my TV remote.

When I was much younger I could see these with the naked eye (just a very very slight shift in the diode's brightness)

From another article I found online
>> Apparently, the less energetic IR photon isn’t enough to trigger cone cells, but when two strike nearly simultaneously, they can trigger a cone cell.

Not that any of that helps with the original question!

 

[passedpawn]

FYI, IR is below visible light not above it. The name itself says it.
Infra meaning below
Red - the color at the lowest part of the visible light spectrum.

What's above visible light is ultraviolet.

So for a filter to be able to show only IR, it has to be a low pass filter, blocking all visible light. That's assuming there isn't already an IR blocking filter in place.

You can use a TV IR remote to test for sensitivity to IR.

Nope. Light is almost ALWAYS identified by its wavelength, and IR is at the high end of the spectrum, ABOVE visible. That is, IR has a higher wavelength than visible red. In order to communicate effectively, we have to have one perspective from which to discuss things like this.

Of course, there's another perspective, but it's one that physicists work in. If we are looking at frequency, then IR is lower than red. Frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional. Also, the energy of light is linearly proportional to its frequency, and infrared light is lower frequency than visible, thus lower energy. So it's likely in the early days of understanding the nature of light, it was measured by its energy or frequency, and IR is lower than red in both cases. But these are not those days.

 

[passedpawn]

When I was much younger I could see these with the naked eye (just a very very slight shirt in the diode's brightness)

From another article I found online
>> Apparently, the less energetic IR photon isn’t enough to trigger cone cells, but when two strike nearly simultaneously, they can trigger a cone cell.

Not that any of that helps with the original question!

Near IR LEDs are all over the spectrum. I have seen them that have some red in their spectrum, easily seen by anyone's naked eye. Those are usually 850nm or lower. 890nm LEDs (and higher) typically don't have any visible light in their output.

Though color sensors usually do have IR filters, you'll note that if you point your cell phone camera at a remote and press a button, you'll definitely see it blink. The camera filter cutoff is apparently higher than our own eye's! Try it.

 

[SkyeHigh]

Nope. Light is almost ALWAYS identified by its wavelength, and IR is at the high end of the spectrum, ABOVE visible. That is, IR has a higher wavelength than visible red. In order to communicate effectively, we have to have one perspective from which to discuss things like this.

Of course, there's another perspective, but it's one that physicists work in. If we are looking at frequency, then IR is lower than red. Frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional. Also, the energy of light is linearly proportional to its frequency, and infrared light is lower frequency than visible, thus lower energy. So it's likely in the early days of understanding the nature of light, it was measured by its energy or frequency, and IR is lower than red in both cases. But these are not those days.

You don’t have a ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ wavelength. It is a longer or shorter. Higher and lower are terms used in relation to frequency.

Infrared has a longer wavelength than visible light and lower in energy.

 

[passedpawn]

You don’t have a ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ wavelength. It is a longer or shorter. Higher and lower are terms used in relation to frequency.

Infrared has a longer wavelength than visible light and lower in energy.

Higher number.

 

[offtheback]

No, there's a filter right over the sensor inside the camera, right along with the anti-aliasing filter. The screw-on filter UV filter on a P3 is not the same thing.

I have never seen any manufacture put a hot-mirror (anti-infrared filter) outside of a camera \ on a lens, unless it's hot mirror lens-mounted filter for full-spectrum converted cameras (so that you can take normal, visible like photography with a converted camera). I have both (full-spectrum and a screw on hot-mirror).

That a phone camera has no hot-mirror over its filter would not be a surprise to me. You might run the same check with your drone (hopefully a Mavic, not a Phantom). I have an IR flashlight, so I'll try it on my Mavic when I can find the it (the flashlight).

Hoya 58mm R72 Infrared Filter

Buy Hoya 58mm R72 Infrared Filter featuring Used for Infrared Photography, Blocks Visible Light Up To 720nm, Compatible with Most Digital Cameras, Can Be Used with Infrared-Type Film, Optical Glass and Aluminum Filter Ring. Review Hoya null

www.bhphotovideo.com

 

[dsops]

Besides the theory, "infrared" filters will need 4..8 stops of more light, so too long exposure times for a drone.

 

[offtheback]

Besides the theory, "infrared" filters will need 4..8 stops of more light, so too long exposure times for a drone.

On a sunny day at ISO 100 F/16(sunny F/16 rule)the shutter speed at 2.8 would be 1/100 with the filter causing 5 stops compensation.At the 9 stops I've observed with the R72 1/5 sec at 2.8.Both doable easily.Raise the ISO to 400 and you're at 2.8 1/20 sec.

 

[Cymruflyer]

Your exposure will be far too long to be useful, if you were to use a standard camera with an R72 filter on the lens. Best to just fake it in post with something like Photoshop to get the IR effect you are looking for.

 

[DanMan32]

My rather expensive camcorder for its time in the late 1980s could see IR from a remote. Even its own remote.

Usually when we discuss or display electromagnetics we discuss as a spectrum, a frequency spectrum. We don't consider radio waves above visible light or x-rays below it. Quite the opposite. Besides, the prefixes in the term infrared and ultraviolet confirm the terminology. We really don't order the spectrum by wavelength but rather by frequency. Infra meaning below, ultra meaning beyond.