What is Digg?31 Comments
- bakagaigin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Er, you got it backwards, Infrared in on the other end of the spectrum from ultra-violet. IR ROYGBIV UV
- r0ck3tm4nn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15To the person who might ask "Why would anyone want to do this," the comparison pic of the flower is a good example. Flower petals often contain patterns that are only visible in the UV spectrum that other animals (namely honeybees) can perceive. It's a neat way to shed new light (literally) on things we see every day.
- pdbogen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12r2builder: The gallery you linked is INFRARED photography. I don't know if the originaly article is actually UV, but what you linked definitely isn't.
- rhettnyedotorg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7maybe it's sort of like this infrared photography trick where you can see through clothes: http://www.newscitech.com/finally-a-filter-for-your-camera-that-can-see-through-clothes/#more-232
(NSFW) - queraxus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Because they can.
- smokinjuan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Here's a UV gallery:
http://foto.no/cgi-bin/bruker/dittnavn/index.cgi?brukernavn=ultraviolet
Cameras do have IR filters, not so sure about UV though.
There's a good chance that your image sensor just isn't sensitive to UV. - Catalyst, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5When I saw the title I was REALLY hoping for a "see through clothes" option.........
- bgs248, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm not exactly buying this either. Wood's glass will allow some red and violet light through. Not surprisingly, his photos turn out all red and violet. He hasn't shown that the UV and IR are actually playing any significant role in the final image. The fact is, the manufacturer of his camera likely went though some trouble to make sure the camera doesn't pick up significant amounts of IR and UV.
Not that what he's saying is impossible, but it would be nice if he did some tests to show that he can actually pick up IR and UV rather than just saying it is so because his photos look purplish. For example, for IR, he could show that he can distinguish between a car that has been running for a while and one that has not. For UV, he could show patterns on flowers that aren't visible to the naked eye, as another poster mentioned. - duckarrowtypes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Here's another interesting site with some technical information on doing this the expensive way: http://www.naturfotograf.com/UV_IR_rev00.html#top_page
- nogahide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Last time I was looking into this sort of thing I found that most sensors (ccd's, cmos, and even photosensers) dropped off sensitivity wise before you get to the UV range.
I would like to find out more about this as I have a specific need and cost was what stopped me before. - zttrx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What you're looking for is a UV black glass filter. I only know of one manufacturer for them, and you can peruse its stats here:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=162&A=details&Q=&sku=8204&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
Along with this filter it's necessary to use special UV sensitive film, as well as choose either a completely uncoated lens, or a lens with coating that will let through as much UV as possible after it gets past that filter. But the original poster is right, those pictures are not UV pictures, they're just purple. - superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Even though the gallery linked to is for IR, he's still kind of right - most cameras have filters built in that block UV beyond a certain point. The filter shown realy is pretty much just blocking of all but a narrow range of light, but that will not extend very far into true UV for most cameras.
- DireAngel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sure it would, but they have to be wearing a sheer clothing material.
- ahknight, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's not altering the light in any way, just letting red and purple light through. The CCD does not capture these ranges, so it's really just a tint.
no digg, bad science. - BIllyBobFett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2no.
- BIllyBobFett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Why would anyone want to do this."
Because they want to do something cool, rather than just sit on the couch, watch TV, and comment on Digg. - DireAngel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Pretty cool DIY way to make a cheap UV lens.
- BIllyBobFett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Watching it now; it's kind of funny. When a video starts out with Dan Akroyd telling me it's "life-affirming" and a quote from Jesus, I start to think we aren't dealing with actual scientists.
- littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I hear you see some pretty weird stuff if you go around filming the sky in the IR spectrum.
- gpit2286, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Skip rose colored glasses and go straight for insect vision.
- BIllyBobFett, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"If the fluorescent blacklight bulb glass didn't work, then he has proven..."
I think everyone is right that the camera probably can't see UV, but I think the fluorescent light's glass didn't work for another reason: the way fluorescent lights work, the inside of the glass is coated with stuff that absorbs the high-energy photons from the inside and emits lower-energy photons in the visible (or in this case near-visible) spectrum. That probably means that the glass, with that coating on it, is not transparent to UV light, just like you never see a normal fluorescent light that's transparent to visible light. (The photons are actually created at the coating/glass boundary, so they don't go through the coating.) The incandescent bulb's glass, on the other hand, just acts as a filter, only letting UV through (and probably a little of the frequencies near UV) so that only the UV part of the radiation from the filament is allowed out of the bulb. - Throlkim, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Easier and quicker to do than an IR conversion - I like it.
- bgs248, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This line in the article was worrisome: "There are two kinds of blacklight bulb (at least), incandescent and fluorescent. I tested both, good for you, because the fluorescent kind DID NOT WORK."
If the fluorescent blacklight bulb glass didn't work, then he has proven that the camera can't pick up a wide range of UV light (at the very least). - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0When I made sunglasses from Wood's glass, suddenly I could see the invisible aliens who are all around us. But then they turned my life into one long chase scene. Wait. Wait. It was a movie. Sorry. I have to go now and take my Prozac.
- Bidofthis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0NASA films spaceflight in the ultraviolet spectrum.
There is famous footage of the Tether UV Incident:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5070476612863849446&q=case+for+nasa+ufos
and hey ...check it out ...it's dan akroyd - SierraAlpha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Did anybody else think it said pornography?
- belvedere, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0This guy is retarded. His images look cool, sure. But show me the data that says it's UV, especially judging by his comments about quartz lenses. There's a good reason you need quartz lenses to take UV pictures--regular glass (i.e., silica containing impurities like Boron) absorbs UV like it's going out of style. Most glass you find actually absorbs UV below 350 nm almost completely in a typical window (or lens) thickness. That's why you don't tend to get sunburned as bad behind a car window.
No digg. - martelsc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Pretty cool to have a cheep way to do it...
- kingygk, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Where is this guy getting 8 min to rip a cd from. I ripped a cd in about 2.5 min on a new macbook. It wasnt even the nice macbook.
- r2builder, on 10/12/2007, -17/+10I hate to be nit picky here, but that's not UV photography. It looks pretty cool & stuff, but I think the glass is just tinting the image.
Real UV photography is mind blowing, hence the expensive price tag. I recommend you have a look at this gallery:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thirtypounces/sets/770268/
really great stuff. - cagedog, on 10/12/2007, -15/+2Why would anyone want to do this.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is