• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / IR images without demosaicing, revisted

IR images without demosaicing, revisted

November 21, 2020 JimK 3 Comments

A long time ago, I experimented with developing deep infrared images without demosaicing. I used some of my own images with a camera that had an antialiasing filter, and some the I got from Lloyd Chambers using a camera with no AA filter. I found very small improvements in the ones without the AA filter. But I couldn’t show you the images, because they were Lloyd’s. Now that I have the no-AA IR-modified (720 nm) GFX 50R, I can do the same tests and show you the results.

I used the same lens that Lloyd did, the Coastal Optical 60 mm f/4 UV-VIS-IR. I put a B+W 093 830 nm lowpass filter on the lens (the same filter that Lloyd used), and set the f-stop to f/5.6. I focused with peaking — gosh the CO 60/4’s focusing rack is twitchy! — and shot with a 10-second self-timer delay with the camera on a tripod.

I developed the raw file in Matlab in two ways. The first was a demosaicing technique called AHD. It was close to the state of the art ten years ago, but has been surpassed. The second was by balancing the four raw channels and just using the balanced pixels in a composite image. This works because at 830 nm and longer wavelengths, all the channels of the Bayer color filter array in the camera are nearly transparent, and the sensor becomes virtually a monochromatic sensor with slightly different gains for the four channels.

Here is a 300% crop of the AHD-developed image:

 

Demosaiced

And here’s the balanced image.

Balanced

There’s a little more contrast in the balanced image, and it is maybe a hair sharper. I’ll bet I could sharpen up the AHD image to make the sharpness equivalent, though.

My take is that there’s not much to be gained from this technique that applies to real-world photography.

By extension, you could say the same thing about sensors that are monochromatic in visible light, but I’m sure that would be controversial. Even if you wanted to use these results to make such a statement, it would only apply to monochromatic subject matter, and you’d have to ignore false-color artifacts.

The Last Word

← Leica 280/4 Apo-Telyt R at 950 nm on GFX 50R Leica 90/2 Apo-Summicron ASPH-M on GFX 50S →

Comments

  1. CarVac says

    November 23, 2020 at 6:37 am

    > By extension, you could say the same thing about sensors that are monochromatic in visible light, but I’m sure that would be controversial.

    Are you suggesting that monochrome sensors have only a small sharpness advantage over color sensors with post conversion to monochrome, in visible light?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      November 23, 2020 at 7:11 am

      This experiment would only speak to a narrow case of a monochromatic sensor making an image of a scene illuminated by a broad-spectrum source color-balanced to the sensor’s raw channel responses (think D50 through a CC30M filter for many cameras). In that case, I think the answer is yes. However, that’s a pretty limited scenario.

      Reply
    • Jack Hogan says

      November 26, 2020 at 9:38 am

      It would depend on the chromatic content of the subject. If it’s neutral there should be little difference in sharpness, I wrote an article on the effect on sharpness of a Bayer CFA a while back.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.