File :-(, x, )
discuss Anonymous
taken with a crappy, old 2megapixels digicam which i modified. it taked infrared pics now.

the pic needs more contrast (as i said, crappy cam..) but i decided to give you the raw pic, so its not photoshopped in any kind (beside resizing to 640x480)

btw it's taken on a sunny summerday


As it's an IR-cam, the result is black/white only.
The leaves of trees appear white as they reflect the ir-light.
the black stripe in the right is there because i didnt adjust the position of the filter perfectly. also the unsharpness in the middle-left is a consequence of my mod.
>> Anonymous
More info on the modding please. I'd love to know how you did this, and the sort of shutter times and such that you get with it.
>> Anonymous
>>172433

Bump.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>172433
if you don't wanna spend money you can do it like
http://home.comcast.net/~zachstern/toyir/toyir.html
<=example with a camera i did like that.
also you can use two layers of exposed developed film instead of the filters like it says.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSunplusCamera ModelSpca533Camera Softwaref-spot version 0.4.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:04:26 09:59:00Exposure Time5/1132 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias12.3 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceUnknownFlashNo FlashFocal Length9.68 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2048Image Height1536
>> Anonymous
>>172468
And then you can enjoy your lack of sharpness and miss focusing.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>172487
>Equipment Make Sunplus
>Camera Model Spca533
It's not like it was a 1Ds III with an L-lens to begin with. I'm guessing the sharpness and focus are about what they were to start with.

I've got a little PoS P&S I bought for $12 that I might try this with...
>> Anonymous
>>172490
I understand, but two different pieces of film that aren't aligned and straight perfectly, it'll probably make it worse.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>172502
Worse... or *better*?
>> Anonymous
>>172433
it's just like>>172468posted, basically you got to do the following:
1) remove the Ir-filter
2) "build in" a visible-light-filter (which can be made out of one layer of the end of a developed film)

no shutter time etc needed, eg my cam is (as said) a crappy one, there is no option such as shutter time or anything in that matter :D
>> Anonymous
>>172509
Depends on what is to your liking. But I'd rather have a Clack over a Holga any day.