28 replies to this topic

[ourobouros2k2]

Full spectrum cameras seem to be all the rage right now. The only problem I see with them is that if you capture an anomaly, how are you to know what spectrum of light that it originated in? I believe that you should have a separate camera for IR, UV, and visible light. At least you can narrow it down a little more. Any thoughts?

Also, a question. Does anyone know why most UV pass filters have sensitivity spikes in the near IR range? Would it ever really be possible with these filters to exclude IR contamination? Ok, another question, lol. Has anyone tried using Wood's glass as an UV pass filter, and if so, what were the results?

thanks
Andy

[RyanNREMTP]

For most of your questions I have no idea. The one that I can answer might provide little information. I know from watching GHI that when they use their full spectrum camera they have a regular one set up next to it and they take the pictures at the same time. The only reason I can think of why they don't use a wider variety of cameras is the cost and finding a suitable tripod that can mount all of them and then finding a way to make them take a picture at the exact same time.

[Zaxxon]

ourobouros2k2, on Jul 20 2009, 05:01 PM, said:

Full spectrum cameras seem to be all the rage right now. The only problem I see with them is that if you capture an anomaly, how are you to know what spectrum of light that it originated in? I believe that you should have a separate camera for IR, UV, and visible light. At least you can narrow it down a little more. Any thoughts?

Also, a question. Does anyone know why most UV pass filters have sensitivity spikes in the near IR range? Would it ever really be possible with these filters to exclude IR contamination? Ok, another question, lol. Has anyone tried using Wood's glass as an UV pass filter, and if so, what were the results?

thanks
Andy

If the theory is that spirit activity can happen in any spectrum seemingly randomly or at will, then why bother trying to classify which spectrum the phenomena happens? If you feel that it would help you try to prove that some anomaly happens in a spectrum then why even use that spectrum at all? If the argument is that something like reflection of IR is causing the issue, then I'd think if you aren't taking that into account on set-up then how can you call anything else taken by the camera as a positive? At that point it would just be bad set-up and you've already lost your control in the investigation for that camera.

[ourobouros2k2]

Zaxxon, on Jul 22 2009, 05:36 PM, said:

If the theory is that spirit activity can happen in any spectrum seemingly randomly or at will, then why bother trying to classify which spectrum the phenomena happens? If you feel that it would help you try to prove that some anomaly happens in a spectrum then why even use that spectrum at all? If the argument is that something like reflection of IR is causing the issue, then I'd think if you aren't taking that into account on set-up then how can you call anything else taken by the camera as a positive? At that point it would just be bad set-up and you've already lost your control in the investigation for that camera.

I am not totally convinced that visual anomalies can show up in a certain wavelength based on choice. I have no data to support that idea, but I think that, at least for some spirits, manifestation may be accidental, as they haven't mastered the process.

At any rate, I think that if we can collect anomalies from various spectrums and count the highest number of occurences in each, we can figure out which spectrum of light will consistently give us the highest rate of success for capturing video/photographic anomalies. I am not saying that one may be better than the other, but my thoughts are that if we can find which spectrum of light yields the best results, then we could figure that it is probably easier for their visual manifestation in said spectrum and concentrate all video methods there. That is my only issue with full spectrum cameras, and some would say it is unimportant as long as the anomaly was captured. I can be a bit nitpicky, lol.

Thanks
Andy

[RyanNREMTP]

I just googled the Wood's Glass and it sounds interesting but not very cost effective from what I read. It's very delicate and can cause health hazards. Plus it sounds like it wears out quickly.

[NNYPRSBigdog]

I believe Adobe has a program called Lightroom and you can use that to examine a photo and I am told it has a spectrum analyzer as a tool, not sure if you would be able to pick out a section of photo and analyze that or not. Something that may be worth experimenting with.

[GhostBreakers]

I understand how things become popular when people see them on TV. Like the full spectrum camera because it was on GHI, etc. I have looked into this type camera but am not convinced it has a practical application for documenting the paranormal. I am just not one for jumping on the bandwagon I guess. I like to start from the beginning and simple.
I mean, everything is based on personal experience. From hearing things and seeing things. I know of a lot of people that have seen things but don’t know of anyone that can see and distinguish things in the full spectrum.
However, almost everyone I know has seen something fleeting. A quick glance of this or that. Even on TV you hear them saying, did you see that and of course we don’t because it went by too fast according to them. I think my next purchase may be the Casio's EX-F1 High Speed camera or something similar. I believe for me it will be more practical for what I want to do. At about 60 fps of still photos and 1200 fps video it should pick up what I might miss.

I started with my 2 camera idea and it has worked well for what I wanted and think the high speed will too. Just my opinions but I tend to look at the practicality for me. My 2 cam outfit dispells the orb and mist myths for me just like I don't use EMF meters but think GPS is a better choice and so on but that is another post...

[RyanNREMTP]

During our investigation last week I was getting some interesting video footage. I was using an UV light that clips onto my hat and also the IR light on my camcorder, we were able to see the veins in people's arms. It was pretty cool, they show up black.

Nothing paranormal but still neat.

[ourobouros2k2]

I have the same UV clip light. Careful when you take off the battery door. The top battery will fly out like a missile, and is currently somewhere under the seat of my patrol car.

[RyanNREMTP]

roger wilco.

[Tom_BGH]

RyanNREMTP, on Aug 27 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

During our investigation last week I was getting some interesting video footage. I was using an UV light that clips onto my hat and also the IR light on my camcorder, we were able to see the veins in people's arms. It was pretty cool, they show up black.

Nothing paranormal but still neat.

I've had the idea of using a simple UV flashlight when I take pictures (I do this currently with a red-filtered flashlight, that I place under my camera's mini-tripod to avoid using flash).

While I'm interested in the idea of full spectrum photography, I don't think it's necessary for me, though: I'm focused on trying to document what people have seen - and since you can't see in the FS range...

[GhostBreakers]

Tom_BGH, on Nov 9 2009, 02:55 PM, said:

While I'm interested in the idea of full spectrum photography, I don't think it's necessary for me, though: I'm focused on trying to document what people have seen - and since you can't see in the FS range...

My point exactly. For me personally I just don't understand why all the gadgets?

My point being that ALL ghost hunts etc are based on someone’s personal experience. People see things with their own eyes and someone comes in and tries to capture it on film.

If a person saw it under normal conditions then why do some try to manipulate the light spectrum or change the original conditions? To create something that is not really there?

It’s the same when some are told that people are experiencing an apparition while on a tour at certain places. Then, they come back at night and turn off the lights to see what they can find. Even knowing that the tours where people are having the experiences are done during the day. Hmmmmmm!

I think people are trying imitate their TV heroes too hard and in doing so create things that aren’t there. Which may look good at first but doesn’t help. I think people need to keep it simple. Do what they know and start from the beginning instead of trying to start with complicated gadgets. People always seem to want to hit the ground running in this feild but in doing so always seem to fall on thier faces. I say start simple, then if they get something, experiment with that data.

However, I don’t think that will happen either. People tend to get something in a photo and they show it to everyone and that is the end of their contribution. No follow up or experimentation. I mean come on. What does one photo of an orb, mist, apparition or whatever really tell you? Nothing!

Remember Einsteins quote?

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius --- and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.

Sorry for Pooh – Poohing on the thread…

[Tom_BGH]

Gadgets are fun, that's for sure. But yeah, I tend to stick to three things: a camcorder, a camera, and a voice recorder. I have a couple other things I bring along, but those three are the top documentation tools for me - and nothing fancy about them!

Plus, I just don't like carrying a lot of crap with me, then having to break it all down!

[ourobouros2k2]

A main reason I persist in using technical means is that I have virtually no intuitive or sensitive ability. I can be in a group of 3 people and 2 of them will see an apparition and I will see nothing. I am therefore relegated to use of monitoring/recording equipment to catch a glimpse of what most people tend to see naturally. Also there is the fact that personal experiences fade with frangible memory, but audio/video/photo clips and recordings last forever.

A.

[RyanNREMTP]

Andy,
How would you go about making a full spectrum camera? I saw a website for a company making them in a camcorder for under $200 and the website is funny to read about the claims but I'm just wondering it's a simple lens removal or is it more complicated than that.

[ourobouros2k2]

RyanNREMTP, on Nov 12 2009, 08:15 AM, said:

Andy,
How would you go about making a full spectrum camera? I saw a website for a company making them in a camcorder for under $200 and the website is funny to read about the claims but I'm just wondering it's a simple lens removal or is it more complicated than that.

It is as simple as it sounds. All that needs to be done is to remove the IR cut filter (hot mirror) from in front of the image sensor and replace it with the appropriate filter. Moditronic, The company you are speaking of, has contracted out to an optics lab and they have produced the filters that moditronic use for their camera conversions. I had inquired about obtaining just the filters from them and modding the cameras myself, but they did not wish to sell those alone (understandable). The filters that they use are really good, and optically some of the best I have seen out there. IMHO the price they are asking for these cameras is a fair price.

I too find their page humorous, as they make some pretty wild assumptions as to the abilities of ghosts. I still think that it is worthy of research though. I am really impressed with the HD quality of those SVP cameras that they use, and you can also use them to record video input just like a DVR. I am going to pick up a full spectrum camera next month, so I will put it through it's paces and let everyone know what I think about it's performance. I find it amusing, given my first post in this very thread, that I am going to get one. Reason is simple, though, I don't have the finances to purchase separate cameras, and at this point, I would just be happy with having the capability of taking video in UVa and IR.

Andy

[RyanNREMTP]

Be sure to let us know how it does. There's still something fishy about the site to me but I've never dealt with them so I could be wrong. If you like the camcorder and it does what it says it will, then I might think about one as well.

[ourobouros2k2]

RyanNREMTP, on Nov 12 2009, 10:17 PM, said:

Be sure to let us know how it does. There's still something fishy about the site to me but I've never dealt with them so I could be wrong. If you like the camcorder and it does what it says it will, then I might think about one as well.

Will do. The principals look sound enough, and they aren't really doing anything that you cannot do for yourself, but if someone wants a Deep IR camera or full spectrum camera without the hassle of the conversion, it is hard to beat their prices/product. I'll let you know what I think about it when I get it and run it through it's paces...

Andy

[ourobouros2k2]

Oh the irony. I started this thread hatin' on full spectrum cameras that were all-in-one devices, yet I have decided to order one tomorrow. Ideally, as I said above, I would like a seperate camera for UV/VIS/IR, but it comes down to budget and this is better than nothing with regards to UV-A video. I'll make sure and write up a full good/bad/ugly review on this camera.

Andy

EDIT: ok, so I am a sucker, lol I am ordering both. For comparative data. Yeah, that's it....comparative data. Think she will buy that?