• 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 / Test methods for IR hotspotting

Test methods for IR hotspotting

March 27, 2015 JimK 5 Comments

I decided that, if I”m going to be able to compare various lenses for hotspotting potential, I need to make the lighting repeatable. That means out with the old, natural light approach, and in with a completely  artificially lit technique.

I started out by creating this target:

black circle

I printed it on a piece of C-sized Exhibition Fiber paper with an Epson 4900 and lit it with a Paul Buff Einstein strobe. Using the variable output control on the strobe, I made an aperture series with the 28mm f/1.4 Nikkor-D. When I looked at the images in Lightroom, I could see right away that I had a problem. The Epson 4900 inkset is not completely opaque to infrared light that the LifePixel standard IR filter responds to.

I found a crude solution; I covered the black dot with two pieces of gaffer tape. It wasn’t a perfect IR sink either, but it was a lot better:

_DSC8922

In order to calibrate out some of the lens transmission differences — and, in the IR region, these very quite a bit across the samples that I’ve tested — I measured both the central black square, and the piece of gaffer tape on the right in Lightroom’s percentage with the sRGB tone curve.

Here’s the raw central data:

black sq IR raw

The Nikkor seems relatively immune to hot spotting. The CO lens might have a little at some of the wider apertures, but not wide open. The Zeiss lens starts out not so good, and rapidly gets worse as you stop down.

I linearized all the Lr gamma corrected values, took the ratio of the center gaffer tape readings to the right side gaffer tape readings, and plotted the result using a log scale :

blk sq hot spot corredted

Well, the results are different, but not in a way that heightens enlightenment, at least for me. There is one possible exception: you could say that the Zeiss results say that the lens is usable at f/8 and wider.

All in all, this is not a totally satisfying outcome. There are lots of things that could be done to improve the quality and the repeatability of the results.

  • Go to a backlit target, with a piece of metal or something else truly IR-opaque occluding the central area.
  • Develop algorithms to measure and compensate for lens falloff.
  • Use light area rather than dark ones to normalize the illumination.

I know of no simple way to compensate for different light transmission vs wavelength characteristics in the lens,

I think this could easily turn into a project that’s a lot more trouble than it’s worth. For now, I think I’ll use this test as a first cut screen for hot spotting, to be followed up by field testing if the results are the least bit inconclusive.

By the way, although I did the above measurements after conversion to greyscale, I did  look at the images in LR-converted false color. Here are thre

 

Nikkor
Nikkor
Distagon
Distagon
Coastal Optical
Coastal Optical

Note the spectral responses are wildly different in the light areas, They are also different, but in different ways, in the gaffer-tape-covers areas, whre the reflected spectrum in apparently different from the incident spectrum

 

 

The Last Word

← Options for travel photography Fallen oak tree at dawn →

Comments

  1. Shane says

    March 28, 2015 at 2:04 pm

    Jim
    you might find these posts by brianc1959 interesting. They are by Brian Caldwell designer of the CO60/4.

    http://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php/topic/14484-hotspot-testing-methodology/?p=111842

    http://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php/topic/10611-troubleshooting-a-hotspot-nikon-24-70-with-converted-d200/?p=79937

    Reply
    • Jim says

      March 30, 2015 at 8:15 am

      Thanks. That makes a lot of sense. I notice the tests in those threads mostly involve photographing a flat field. I’ve found that not to be very sensitive, although perhaps oversensitivity is a potential worry with the dark-center tests that I’m doing.

      Jim

      Reply
  2. Shane says

    September 19, 2015 at 12:20 pm

    Jim

    I am not sure if you followed up with any field testing as you indicate in this post but I would be particularly interested in your results for field testing of the CO 60/4.

    I have also used a North blue sky around noon, making sure to use a lens hood, and incorporating a natural surrounding of well watered green tree cover around the periphery of the image. This last part is very important and I was glad to see it in your earlier hotspot tests of the 35/2ZF.2.. As I sometimes like to push my B&W 830nm images hard, any sign of a hot spot or IR flare, even if very faint, once the RAW file drops into ACR indicates signs of trouble. However, not displaying a hot spot in ACR (no processing other than exposure and black level adjustment) obviously doesn’t mean you are free and clear, so I then pass it through to Silver Efex Pro and just hit it hard with 024 Full Contrast & Structure and see how bad it is.

    If you have any field tests for the CO 60/4, especially f/5.6 to f/11, I would be interested to see the “pushed” images, if you have the means to do so.

    regards
    Shane

    Reply
    • Jim says

      September 19, 2015 at 6:40 pm

      Shane, I’ll look into it, but it will take me a while. I’m just back from Alaska with 7000 images to process. And then there’s that book I’m working on.

      Jim

      Reply
  3. Shane says

    September 20, 2015 at 11:24 am

    Thanks Jim.

    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.