Are there any programs that can convert color infra-red photos to actual color?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: DanP on 16 Jul 2010 16:08 On Jul 16, 1:48 am, Scotius <yodas...(a)mnsi.net> wrote: > I know that color infra-red images look really weird (for lack > of a better term), but I once read that infra-red light cuts through > fog/haze etc better than regular light, which I suppose is why B & W > infra-red shots always look better than B & W shots without IR flash. > So I'm wondering if there's a program that could accurately > predict based on IR color what the colors present should be, and > convert them, so it would be possible to do color shots better in > haze, etc. > Anyone know of anything like this? The information from an IR image has nothing to do with the colour. A hot green mug will look different in IR than a plant with the same shade of green. So you cannot map IR to visible colour. DanP
From: Nervous Nick on 16 Jul 2010 19:36 On Jul 15, 7:48 pm, Scotius <yodas...(a)mnsi.net> wrote: > I know that color infra-red images look really weird (for lack > of a better term), but I once read that infra-red light cuts through > fog/haze etc better than regular light, which I suppose is why B & W > infra-red shots always look better than B & W shots without IR flash. > So I'm wondering if there's a program that could accurately > predict based on IR color what the colors present should be, and > convert them, so it would be possible to do color shots better in > haze, etc. > Anyone know of anything like this? Why would you want to do this, even if it were at all possible?
From: David J Taylor on 17 Jul 2010 05:52 "DanP" <dan.petre(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:46365b3d-a169-4fa0-8995-a96da2cdde1f(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... [] > The information from an IR image has nothing to do with the colour. > A hot green mug will look different in IR than a plant with the same > shade of green. > So you cannot map IR to visible colour. > > DanP Be careful not to confuse near-IR with far-IR. With digital cameras and film it's the region just beyond the red end of the visible spectrum which people call "IR" - a wavelength of ~0.8um. Here, the prime difference is that the reflectance of vegetation is much higher and hence the characteristic appearance of monochrome IR images. Put briefly: to see thermal radiation from a hot mug requires an imager sensitive in the 10um region of the spectrum, which might require a cooled detector. To see fires of a few hundred degrees C, imagers sensitive to the 3-5um region of the spectrum work the best. Cheers, David
From: Grimly Curmudgeon on 17 Jul 2010 08:42 We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember sligoNoSPAMjoe(a)hotmail.com saying something like: >It would be something like trying to make a Big Mac taste like >cheese cake with cherry topping with out having cheese or cherries or >even knowing that what you have to start with is a Big Mac. Living by chemistry. I'm sure some food researchers are working on it.
From: Grimly Curmudgeon on 17 Jul 2010 08:46
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Kennedy McEwen <rkm(a)nospam.demon.co.uk> saying something like: >I was once asked by a senior member of the UK >Royal Family why the false colour pictures from a thermal camera, >representing temperature from blue being cold to red being hot, made >someone's shirt look orange when it was obviously blue. Just as I >repeated that it was false colour, a colleague jumped in and told him >not to worry because I would have that fixed in a day or two. No such >thing as a stupid question, just stupid people. Your colleague saw the Royal's eyes glaze over two sentences into the explanation and leapt in to save you. The Royals are notoriously difficult to penetrate with any meaningful knowledge, their inbreeding prevents it. |