Invisible flash produces photos without glares
By Laura June 
posted Jul 17th 2009 6:47AM
posted Jul 17th 2009 6:47AM
Dilip Krishnan and Rob Fergus at New York University have developed a dark or invisible flash which uses infrared and UV light to take photos in dark places without the nasty glare of a standard flash. Their dark flash camera is made by modifying a flashbulb so that it emits light over a wider range of frequencies and filters out the visible light, and removes filters that prevent the silicon image sensor from detecting IR and UV rays. This flash results in a crisp image which does not have correct color balance, and looks like night vision photography. To correct the colors of the image, the camera also takes a quick color image sans flash right after the dark flash image. The image produced in this second image is predictably grainy and unclear, but the colors are correct. Software is then used to combine the information from the photos to produce the final image (an example of which you see above). There are some minor problems with the method -- objects that absorb UV light (such as freckles!) do not show up using this method. The pair will present their work at the Siggraph conference in New Orleans in August.
Clever!
"There are some minor problems with the method -- objects that absorb UV light (such as freckles!) do not show up using this method"
That's a bonus, not a problem
Dude, seriously get a hot chick to sell the idea. This cat ain't doing nothing to sell this....
people with rosacea will love this, no heavy make-up and nice picts...
Or maybe it's Laura's way to let us nerds know that we all can make it to the front page if this guy can.
Softbox is much better than this.
Also UV light damages DNA (pyrimidine dimers), which may be repaired incorrectly leading to a mutation that can cause rapid, uncontrolled cell proliferation
... in other words CANCER
I assume it's a small dose, though...
That's actually pretty cool - means that all those outdoor evening party shots would actually be usable, not bright (drunken) blobs in front of a pitch black background.
The outdoor shots will also be marred by IR light. There is a reason why cameras have IR filters; IR filters help make the colors of your photos more accurate, and without them you get lame colors like you do on cheap webcams. True also in the case of UV light; many people purchase UV filters for this reason. Also light of different wavelengths refract at different angles and thus also focus at different spots; while achromatic or apochromatic lenses correct usually for red and blue (and green in the case of apo lenses) wavelengths, light outside of the visible spectrum is likely not corrected, resulting in hazy or fuzzy images if filters are not employed.
This tech would be useful if the ir filter can be switched on and off though. Taking the IR filter off would also increase sensitivity by about a stop.
Given that the IR/UV picture is taken with a filter that blocks visible light, they're already swapping out one filter to do the visible picture. So it wouldn't be a stretch to make it swap in an IR/UV filter at that stage.
Right but filter switching isn't so practical in an actual product. Very few compacts allow you to do this; the Canon G5 is the only one I can think of with a toggle-able ND filter.
The other thing is that shooting a face in front of a white wall is opne thing for a demo - but at that night party out on the deck with random lighting - wide open space and many other degress of objects in and around the image area - the photo will end up with flares - elements of over exposure - lots of localized noise spots among other issues.
Too bad these dudes aren't showing any "real world" scenarios photos.
great idea for intelligence agencies and the like..
intelligence agencies would not like the normal flash picture to get the colors as the final step (the only semi-original part of this project since it hasn't been done to death yet I thnk).
And the intelligence agencies already have IR nightvision stuff obviously.
Not that it makes this any less awesome, but something like this should have been thought of a looooooong time ago.
or we could wait till canon and nikon comes out with DSLRs that boast ISO 1,000,000
hopefully they also come with a free set of earplugs for the rediculous amount of noise generated.
Great idea, too bad the end result based on the image above still looks like crap. It would still require a lot more color correction at this point to get a more desirable result I'd say.
Yep. There's a reason those filters are added in the first place and that's to make the sensor record light as we see it. Removing the filters make the images appear unrealistic.
Eminem's really let go of himself...
I knew I wasn't the only one who saw that.. lol
It must have been around for a while..that dude has an earring (in right ear, too, no less), and dudes stopped wearing earrings in the early 90's.
what are u like 12? plenty of guys have their ears pierced or gauged... earings are as much of a fad as jeans.
Ok so there's two sides they could of used for this face closeup. And they pick the one the the wart / albino mole...?
Amazing, one of those things that you ask yourself how come it wasn't invented before.
I'll miss red eyes.....
Since it doesn't work on freckles, what happens if you are from a country where the climate promotes a high level of melanin in the skin?
You don't look like a criminal anymore.
*rim shot*
hmmm....let's flash UV rays right into someone's cornea....maybe it'll scar their retina and corneal tissues....nah not a chance! Besides, it says right here on the back of the camera, "Surgeon General Warning: Do not flash directly into eyes more than 5 times without adequate resting time in between. MAY CAUSE SERIOUS DAMAGE TO EYES OR PERMANENT BLINDNESS!"
Good luck folks....too bad that won't be able to see a damn thing in a few years.
Right, I'm not sure why no one else clued into the fact that these things would be bad for your health. The eyes are at risk like you say, and I'm sure your skin's additional exposure to UV would not be helpful either.
Depends on the wavelength really. UV light above 320nm is safe.
You sound like the people that would walk up to me when I worked at a big box electronic store, and berate wifi routers because they didn't want their kids exposed to electromagnetic radiation. Then they turned away and talked in their bluetooth headset connected to the phone in the pocket next to their family jewels.
If only the radiation would have taken out the jewels BEFORE they could reproduce.
Also, UV light is emitted by almost all light sources.
@TangoEchoXray
Completely different comparing non-ionizing EM radiation from a Wifi router. vs. a high intensity UV flash directed right at your eyes. UV light bulbs/LEDs will cook your eyes in a very short amount of time. Don't believe me?
Well you could A) do some research or even better B) go buy some UV lights for your house and stare at them everyday and see how your vision is in a year.
@cocviper
I'll go ahead and venture a guess that since these people are developing a tech for picture taking, and that the example is a portrait (face towards camera), that they just MIGHT have thought of the whole UV light being bad for you (which is a generalization, not all EM radiation at that end of the spectrum will blind you).
Also, you missed the point, I was not comparing routers to uv, I was highlighting the ridiculous armageddon type response. (ITS GONNA KILL US) from htr-labs
duh.
@cocoviper
see comment by bigcow05 above
Why can't people understand such comparisons? Why do they always jump on the part that is not compared and take that as the literal point?
I'm sorry TangoEchoXray, people are fools, I think that point was made clear by both your example of foolishness and by people not getting it.
Marge: "Does that earring mean you're a pirate?"
Pirate: "Kinda."
ITS SO HIDEOUS!
BUT I CANT LOOK AWAY! AHHH
Cripes! Couldn't they have found a more photogenic model?!
Looks a little like Marshal Mathers
I'm glad to see they've already deployed this solution commercially: Taking mugshots of pedophiles!
Didn't Weegee do this a long long time ago?
This dude looks like he wants to rape my cat...
I am a bit skeptical. If it was shot in the dark and the light is invisible to our eyes, there wouldn't be any reflection in his eye.
@shenanigans: the light IS invisible to our eyes but not the camera. Here's proof: get your cell phone and activate camera. Now, get your remote for your tv, point it at your phone/camera and push a button. See the pretty flashing light? Can't see it w/o camera but shows up well enough on camera.
Other way around bro. They modify the camera to make it visible over the infrared spectrum. All digi cams have a UV/IR protective cover over the sensor. Remove the sensor cover and the camera can record those spectrums too.
I have shot with IR sensitive film and the Fuji IS Pro.
Now that I think about it, I retract my first comment. Above still stands.
This wouldn't work on people who wear glasses with UV coating. They'd look like they're wearing sunglasses in every picture.
Which wouldn't be pretty awesome, really.
Or you could just use bounce flash or a diffuser and save yourself the trouble. But I guess that wouldn't be as fun.
WOULD YOU or WOULDN'T YOU want to use this to photograph the bedspread when you walk into a hotel room? . . .