>Whenever shooting a subject with a mixture of visible and infrared light, it becomes readily apparent that infrared light focuses differently from visible light. For many subjects, this can mean having to choose between crisp visible contours and an odd pink glow, or blurred edges with some unusual pink features inside. Some things never look sharp no matter where you move the focus.
The extent of this effect is very lens dependent. It also occurs in different colours of visible light too, depending on how well the lens design accounts for it. Optically, the term is "Chromatic Aberration" - lens designers try and account for it in the visible spectrum with optical design and lens coatings, and modern designs are generally extremely well corrected in the visible spectrum. _Usually_ designers aren't worried about the design correctly handing convergence into IR and UV, so how well designs focus them to the same point as the visible spectrum is hit or miss. There's specialist lenses out there that are designed specifically for wide spectrum apochromatism, but they tend to be special purpose and very expensive - especially if they handle UV.
The author mentions it at the bottom of the post as something they're interested in trying out, but I've found it very fun to play with dual bandpass filters - they pass a part of the Visible Spectrum + IR, which creates some interesting options in editing for visual display. There's an example in this set I shot with different filters - https://www.reddit.com/r/infraredphotography/comments/1dnki0...
One thing I've wondered about is IR fluorescence photography.
I've seen some examples in document forensics where a page that looks blank (or at least the ink is unrecognizably smudged) because of water exposure is completely legible with an infrared photo illuminated by UV.
I suspect there must be a hidden world only visible in IR and UV (and long-wave IR, e.g. "thermal").
You’re considering whether it would be possible - and perhaps quite elegant - to use an XY‑scanner to raster‑scan the end of an optical fiber across a prism, disperse the light, and then capture the resulting spectrum with a CCD line sensor.
With that setup, each pixel on the line sensor would effectively record the full spectral content of the light at that scanned position, all in a single acquisition.
You could probably use just an X-scanner, and instead of a CCD line sensor, use a regular 2D image sensor if you used a "1 pixel wide" slit aperture to crop the image perpendicularly to the direction that the prism disperses the light. So instead of a single pixel being dispersed, you disperse a line.
You would reduce the time required by the root of the number of pixels you want (assuming a square image).
(This is what we do in momentum-resolved electron energy loss spectroscopy. In that situation we have electromagnetic lenses that focus the electrons that have been dispersed, so we don't have as bad a chromatic aberration problem as the other response mentions).
I would love to see e.g. a butterfly image with a slider that I could drag to choose the wavelength shown!!
A problem for multispectral imagery (even within visible rgb), is that the wavelengths of light are different so the lens cannot be in focus for all spectrum at once. I have tested this out with a few of my slr lenses. If you have blue channel perfectly in focus, red isn't just a little out of focus, it is actually noticeably way out.
This is called chromatic aberration, for those who are intrigued.
Given that regular phone cameras have sensors that detect RGB, I wonder if one could notice improved image sharpness if one had three camera lenses (and used single-color sensors) next to one another laterally, with a color filter for R, G and B for each one respectively. So that the camera could focus perfectly for each wavelength.
there are lenses out there designed for apochromatic performance across the UV-Vis-IR band, but they tend to be really pricey.
The Coastal Optical 60mm is a frequently cited one. UV in particular is challenging, because glass that works well in the visible light range can be quite poorly translucent in UV. Quartz is better, but drives up the cost a lot, and comes with other tradeoffs.
I've had this problem as well, but it's just due to optical properties of the lens and extremely consistent from image to image, so you can calibrate and correct for it as long as you focus each wavelength and collect data separately.
Related project: I shot a lot of landscapes in Iceland using a thermal (long wave IR) camera to show geologic phenomena in action. This involved stitching together a lot of (narrow FOV) thermal images and overlaying it on top of visible camera images for context.
This is really cool -- pedantically, I've always thought "full spectrum" is actually misleading from a traditional photographic sense. Like IR + visible light + UV != full spectrum. I'd love to see post-processed imagery of every-day life through an extended view of broader EM energy (similar to astrophotography)... like what does a city scene look like with x-rays and microwaves included?
Side note: have always loved this image https://imgur.com/NZjWfWT of rainbows with UV and IR visible.
You'd obviously have to use false-color, as most modern astronomy pictures do (even the ones that use visible tend to pump the saturation UP!).
However, the amount of light from the sun drops off exponentially away from the peak at green-blue (yellow-green, after atmospheric filtering). You'd also have to really fake the dynamic range a lot to get it to look any different from IR+Vis+NUV. (If there was 0.001% as much x-ray light as there is, say, red light, DNA could only exist in the lightless depths of the ocean.)
So, it would look like an IR+Vis photo (light falls off pretty fast in the UV, too), except the ones you've seen oversell the IR.
So it would look like a Vis-light photo, with slightly shinier objects in it.
>Whenever shooting a subject with a mixture of visible and infrared light, it becomes readily apparent that infrared light focuses differently from visible light. For many subjects, this can mean having to choose between crisp visible contours and an odd pink glow, or blurred edges with some unusual pink features inside. Some things never look sharp no matter where you move the focus.
The extent of this effect is very lens dependent. It also occurs in different colours of visible light too, depending on how well the lens design accounts for it. Optically, the term is "Chromatic Aberration" - lens designers try and account for it in the visible spectrum with optical design and lens coatings, and modern designs are generally extremely well corrected in the visible spectrum. _Usually_ designers aren't worried about the design correctly handing convergence into IR and UV, so how well designs focus them to the same point as the visible spectrum is hit or miss. There's specialist lenses out there that are designed specifically for wide spectrum apochromatism, but they tend to be special purpose and very expensive - especially if they handle UV.
The author mentions it at the bottom of the post as something they're interested in trying out, but I've found it very fun to play with dual bandpass filters - they pass a part of the Visible Spectrum + IR, which creates some interesting options in editing for visual display. There's an example in this set I shot with different filters - https://www.reddit.com/r/infraredphotography/comments/1dnki0...
One thing I've wondered about is IR fluorescence photography.
I've seen some examples in document forensics where a page that looks blank (or at least the ink is unrecognizably smudged) because of water exposure is completely legible with an infrared photo illuminated by UV.
I suspect there must be a hidden world only visible in IR and UV (and long-wave IR, e.g. "thermal").
You’re considering whether it would be possible - and perhaps quite elegant - to use an XY‑scanner to raster‑scan the end of an optical fiber across a prism, disperse the light, and then capture the resulting spectrum with a CCD line sensor.
With that setup, each pixel on the line sensor would effectively record the full spectral content of the light at that scanned position, all in a single acquisition.
You could probably use just an X-scanner, and instead of a CCD line sensor, use a regular 2D image sensor if you used a "1 pixel wide" slit aperture to crop the image perpendicularly to the direction that the prism disperses the light. So instead of a single pixel being dispersed, you disperse a line.
You would reduce the time required by the root of the number of pixels you want (assuming a square image).
(This is what we do in momentum-resolved electron energy loss spectroscopy. In that situation we have electromagnetic lenses that focus the electrons that have been dispersed, so we don't have as bad a chromatic aberration problem as the other response mentions).
I would love to see e.g. a butterfly image with a slider that I could drag to choose the wavelength shown!!
A problem for multispectral imagery (even within visible rgb), is that the wavelengths of light are different so the lens cannot be in focus for all spectrum at once. I have tested this out with a few of my slr lenses. If you have blue channel perfectly in focus, red isn't just a little out of focus, it is actually noticeably way out.
This is called chromatic aberration, for those who are intrigued.
Given that regular phone cameras have sensors that detect RGB, I wonder if one could notice improved image sharpness if one had three camera lenses (and used single-color sensors) next to one another laterally, with a color filter for R, G and B for each one respectively. So that the camera could focus perfectly for each wavelength.
there are lenses out there designed for apochromatic performance across the UV-Vis-IR band, but they tend to be really pricey.
The Coastal Optical 60mm is a frequently cited one. UV in particular is challenging, because glass that works well in the visible light range can be quite poorly translucent in UV. Quartz is better, but drives up the cost a lot, and comes with other tradeoffs.
I've had this problem as well, but it's just due to optical properties of the lens and extremely consistent from image to image, so you can calibrate and correct for it as long as you focus each wavelength and collect data separately.
Related project: I shot a lot of landscapes in Iceland using a thermal (long wave IR) camera to show geologic phenomena in action. This involved stitching together a lot of (narrow FOV) thermal images and overlaying it on top of visible camera images for context.
https://petapixel.com/2019/07/13/shooting-high-res-thermal-p...
This is really cool -- pedantically, I've always thought "full spectrum" is actually misleading from a traditional photographic sense. Like IR + visible light + UV != full spectrum. I'd love to see post-processed imagery of every-day life through an extended view of broader EM energy (similar to astrophotography)... like what does a city scene look like with x-rays and microwaves included?
Side note: have always loved this image https://imgur.com/NZjWfWT of rainbows with UV and IR visible.
You'd obviously have to use false-color, as most modern astronomy pictures do (even the ones that use visible tend to pump the saturation UP!).
However, the amount of light from the sun drops off exponentially away from the peak at green-blue (yellow-green, after atmospheric filtering). You'd also have to really fake the dynamic range a lot to get it to look any different from IR+Vis+NUV. (If there was 0.001% as much x-ray light as there is, say, red light, DNA could only exist in the lightless depths of the ocean.)
So, it would look like an IR+Vis photo (light falls off pretty fast in the UV, too), except the ones you've seen oversell the IR.
So it would look like a Vis-light photo, with slightly shinier objects in it.
Sorry.