Live data from Hacker News

Artem vs. Predator

ribbonfarm.com

21–30 of 69 posts

Re: Artem vs. Predator

#21
Infrared film used to be available commercially with sensitivity up to 900nm. It was quite useful for aerial photography work – forestry, surveying, spying. Very little of it is still around. Kodak Ektachrome was what one could get for your high school dark room. Aerochrome for surveying work. It was discontinued in 2009. Ilford however still makes some. Be forwarned, finding someone to develop the stuff is a nightmare, the chemicals are toxic, and the shelf-life brief.

Scientific infrared films, such as special formulations of AeroChrome I, II, II, approached sensitivity up to 1200nm.

In surveillance work, objects which were painted to look like their natural environment using various organic or inorganic paints may show up quite differently in the infrared spectrum.

In forestry work, old growth tree populations could easily be distinguished from new growth tree populations and were one of the primary uses for Nasa's version of the U2 (ER-2) for identifying old-growth redwood populations in northern California. [1]

A lot of work was done in the 1970's and '80's by astronomers and physicists to 'hack' Eastman Kodak scientific film, or plates as they were called. (Once you move past "point and shoot" film, you get into the realm of plates, 4"x5" trays similar to old-timey 1880's cameras.) Things like Kodak I-Z. One technique was to hypersensitize the film by bathing it in Ammonium Hydroxide [2]. Lawrence Livermore had such an appetite for IR-sensitive film with their laser work that they set up their own production process for hypsersentizing Kodak scientific plates. Another was to supersensitize them with acetic solutions getting film sensitivity in the >1500nm range [3]. This seems to be the limit of our knowledge for traditional chemical film processes.

Modern DSLR's have sensitivity up to 1600nm. Nikon worked with NASA for some of their special DSLR's [4].

One of the cooler things I saw was a University of Florida paper in Nature that used IR-OLED's to upconvert IR to visible light through a lens adapter achieving sensitivity from 400nm to 2000nm [5].

Beyond 2000nm you get into the MWIR range and FLIR devices take over.

[1] https://books.google.com/books?id=HZUTCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT129&lpg=...

[2] http://www.osti.gov/scitech/servlets/purl/4442636/

[3] https://books.google.com/books?id=nlftCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA259&lpg=...

[4] http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/Collections/NearIR/IR_Intro.htm

[5] http://www.nature.com/articles/srep05946

Re: Artem vs. Predator

#24
post #17

> But for our goal it’s important to remember, because infrared light does not pass through glass I thought that was UV?! If that statement is true, how on earth am I able to busk in the heat of the sun behind a glass window, indoors?

The sun produces visible light as well.

Yes, I think this is a common misconception: infrared light is "heat radiation" in the sense that it's emitted from hot things, but any wavelength of light you absorb (not just IR) will heat you up.

Re: Artem vs. Predator

#25
post #24
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sun produces visible light as well.

Yes, I think this is a common misconception: infrared light is "heat radiation" in the sense that it's emitted from hot things, but any wavelength of light you absorb (not just IR) will heat you up.

> but any wavelength of light you absorb (not just IR) will heat you up

Thanks - this is the bit I was un-/miseducated about. When we were taught about radiation in high school, I suspect my young mind concluded that since infrared and visible light were mutually exclusive on visibility, the same applied to heating. To this day, I thought infrared → heat and heat → infrared.

Re: Artem vs. Predator

#26
post #2

This is a great story, but the original title of "Artem vs. Predator" is much better than the submitted one.

The title is artem v predator, but gives zero information of the content. I clicked out of curiosity but usually avoid vague titled links.

Re: Artem vs. Predator

#27

Infrared film used to be available commercially with sensitivity up to 900nm. It was quite useful for aerial photography work – forestry, surveying, spying. Very little of it is still around. Kodak Ektachrome was what one could get for your high school dark room. Aerochrome for surveying work. It was discontinued in 2009. Ilford however still makes some. Be forwarned, finding someone to develop the stuff is a nightma…

Do you have do develop those films in the freezer? A normal dark room is not really dark at those wavelengths, even if you turn the red lamps off, right?

Re: Artem vs. Predator

#28
post #2

This is a great story, but the original title of "Artem vs. Predator" is much better than the submitted one.

The title is artem v predator, but gives zero information of the content. I clicked out of curiosity but usually avoid vague titled links.

Indeed, the title brought to my mind the Alien vs. Predator movies, so I clicked to see what it meant when you replace Alien with Artem in that context...

Re: Artem vs. Predator

#29

So is the future wavelength project something like radio waves? It would be fascinating to see an image lit by radio waves. Imagine a wifi router being lit up like a lightbulb, casting shadows around a room, or a room lit by FM radio passing through walls and windows, etc.

Walls are transparent to FM (~100MHz) radio, so you won't see anything.

WiFi is closer. High microwave is probably what you want here.

And of course, this already exists. It's called radar. Haven't seen any radar "photos" though. Interesting if that's indeed possible.

Re: Artem vs. Predator

#30
post #29

So is the future wavelength project something like radio waves? It would be fascinating to see an image lit by radio waves. Imagine a wifi router being lit up like a lightbulb, casting shadows around a room, or a room lit by FM radio passing through walls and windows, etc.

Walls are transparent to FM (~100MHz) radio, so you won't see anything. WiFi is closer. High microwave is probably what you want here. And of course, this already exists. It's called radar. Haven't seen any radar "photos" though. Interesting if that's indeed possible.

The size of the things you can see depends on the wavelength of the light.

FM Radio (100MHz) has 3m wavelength. You'll need a giant camera and will be able to see only very big structures.

Wifi/Microwave/Radar is in the Gigahertz range. 2.5GHz == 12cm wavelength. For radar photos, you'll need a very big camera, and a human would be only a few pixels big.

Some airport scanners are based on millimeter waves (teraherz radiation), and you can find sample photos online. They produce pretty blurry pictures, but clothes become partially transparent.

Post reply on HN