I'm done with infrared

pixbyjohn

wavelength = 300 / frequency in MHz

charybdis

pixbyjohn wrote: »

wavelength = 300 / frequency in MHz

Sortof, in a vacuum.

Tactical

10mtrs = 30MHz.

( F in MHz = 300/Wavelength in meters )

For 1THz you'll need a corner cube detector.

The HF bands have been used for "imaging" in the past and currently. Anyone remember the famous Woodpecker signal? OTHR used by the Russians during the Cold War era :eek:

As for the cooking, its the frequency that's important. At particular frequencies the fat and water molecules in the food we intend to cook vibrate when subjected to the energy causing them to vibrate, producing heat which cooks the food.

With enough power and a decent enough mismatch it is possible to produce light using 10mtrs (or 30MHz). You can get the RF to arc

K_user

CabanSail wrote: »

So ... No Photons .... No Light .... Not Photography ... QED

And another thing!

I have a scan of my 12 month old when he was in the womb.
Its a photograph that was taken without light...

K_user

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

I think you will find, my unlearned friend, that radio waves certainly ARE made up of photons, albeit very low energy photons. And I suspect you're talking wavelength here, not frequency ...

Very true:

One way in which energy can be transferred is by electromagnetic radiation. To understand radiation, imagine energy, contained in particles, travelling along in waves. These particles are called photons. Some types of energy are more intense than others, so these photons will move faster. This does not mean that the wave travels faster; all electromagnetic waves always travel at exactly the same speed – the speed of light. But each different type of energy has a different level of intensity and travels at a different wavelength and frequency, with high-energy photons travelling in shorter waves.

The Electromagnetic Spectrum (EMS) encompasses every type of electromagnetic wave, with the high-energy waves at one end of the spectrum and the low-energy waves at the other. At the top end are gamma rays, which have the shortest wavelengths and the highest frequencies, and at the opposite end of the spectrum are radio waves, with the longest wavelengths and the lowest frequencies. In between are microwaves which are slightly shorter than radio waves, then infra-red waves, then visible light waves including ultra-violet, and finally X-rays which are slightly longer than gamma rays.

SinisterDexter

FENSTER!!!!!:mad:

I hope you are happy with your little stunt!







*sees Fenster sitting in the corner, giggling*:pac:

K_user

SinisterDexter wrote: »

*sees Fenster sitting in the corner, giggling*:pac:

A giggling man, sitting in the corner...with a giant x-ray machine...calling Mr Bond...

gbee

K_user wrote: »

I have a scan of my 12 month old when he was in the womb. Its a photograph that was taken without light...

No it's not, it's an ultra sound. A womb gets blasted with sound waves and the reflections are recorded ... it's not a photograph by definition, and the technician simply printed off the screen image.

Many things make images and an Ultrasound is an Ultrasound [image] :cool:

K_user

gbee wrote: »

No it's not, it's an ultra sound. A womb gets blasted with sound waves and the reflections are recorded ... it's not a photograph by definition,

Interesting...

Photography is simply the recording of reflections onto a photosensitive surface.

The difference is only in the method, not the result.

charybdis

K_user wrote: »

And remind me what digital photography is again?

Sure light is used at the point of capture, but the rest is more science than painting.

The average digital camera is a mini-micro computer. It changes tone, contrast, makes color adjustments and it sharpens. Even most DSLR users use a post processing package like Photoshop. HDR anyone?

The days of "painting with light" ended when the average Joe was given the ability to clone out entire sections of an image...

I don't really think digital photography is any less pure with regard to light capture because of its electronic processing any more than film photography is because of its chemical processing.

It's not as if the film somehow traps the light at the time of exposure, the film chemistry, too, "changes tone, contrast, makes color adjustments and it sharpens".

DaireQuinlan

charybdis wrote: »

I don't really think digital photography is any less pure with regard to light capture because of its electronic processing any more than film photography is because of its chemical processing.

It's not as if the film somehow traps the light at the time of exposure, the film chemistry, too, "changes tone, contrast, makes color adjustments and it sharpens".

ooo

I think this is definitely an argument we'll have to have some other day Latent images and all.

gbee

charybdis wrote: »

I don't really think digital photography is any less pure with regard to light capture because of its electronic processing any more than film photography is because of its chemical processing.

It's not as if the film somehow traps the light at the time of exposure, the film chemistry, too, "changes tone, contrast, makes color adjustments and it sharpens".

Light is the agitator in each event. In the emulsion of film the Silver Halides actively react to light and layers give the colour values. To make these changes visible they are developed or enhanced and then rendered neutral by the dev process [actually the process is unstoppable and all negatives fade away in time].

A digital sensor simply has a hair of metal that is struck by light and agitates, the vibration is then turned into electrical signals. The colour comes from pre-coloured layers over the sensor, other sensor have depth of penetration to also achieve the colour.

DaireQuinlan

gbee wrote: »

A digital sensor simply has a hair of metal that is struck by light and agitates, the vibration is then turned into electrical signals.

Dude, I'm with you here in principal, but the above shows a woeful misunderstanding of how digital sensors work

gbee

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Dude, I'm with you here in principal, but the above shows a woeful misunderstanding of how digital sensors work

At it's basics and in regards to light 'being trapped' comment. Light is converted and it is a tiny sliver of metal that is initially vibrated by the light striking it .. and I know one pixel does not a picture make.

Fenster

April fools.

gbee

Fenster wrote: »

April fools.

But it's backfired or you've just chickened out, an April's Joke works only if you are believed.

Fenster

Option 3: I'm about to take a new prescription that I'm 90% sure will knock me the fcuk out. I won't be here to nurse the thread.

Fenster

Fenster wrote: »

Option 3: I'm about to take a new prescription that I'm 90% sure will knock me the fcuk out. I won't be here to nurse the thread.

Room for one more?

Fenster

We can make beautiful head babies together.

Tactical

:eek:

Fenster

gbee

Bye then and have nice babies, isn't the ignore tool fantastic.

Fenster

Oh well.

Corkfeen

Fenster wrote: »

April fools.

You're fecking go through with it now. We want to see this revolutionary technique.

sheesh

Fenster wrote: »

Through. Finished.

I...well where do I start? It's been fun. Misadventures at 720nm, my infrared blog, represents a real learning experience spread out over the past few months. I've learned the spectrum, the light, what's interesting and what's boring, but at the end of it all: The boring wins. I've done it all, and I've done it all in infrared. The thought of taking that little black filter out of its case and screwing it onto my lens makes me feel almost physically ill. I mean. Look at every infrared photograph: White trees, black sky. Boring boring boring.

I'm shifting format, effective today. I want to keep up with what I have done by staying away from visible light. In fact, I'm moving totally down the scale. Radio-wavelength portrait photography. Something unique, new and different enough to make me stand out from the crowd. 720 nanometers? That's dead and gone. The kit has been ordered, delivered and assembled. The software has been loaded. The tutorials have been read. As of tomorrow Misadventures at 10m will go live.

Shine on you crazy diamond

FoxT

I have developed a sensor which uses the Coriolis force as the energy source instead of electromagnetic waves. It works really well in areas where there are local or gravitational anomalies, and it fits in my arse pocket. Doesnt need batteries, I just wind it up whenever I want to take a shot.

Did you know, that every time you take a photograph, you consume light, so the universe gets a little darker? When the nutty Greens realise this, expect SLRs to be banned, along with mink farming & deer hunting....I reckon my Coriolis Force Antenna & Radiation Thingummy (Co-FART) will do well in years to come....

-FoxT

Tactical

Yes, but does your Co-FART emmit Green House gasses? If so then expect the Greens to ban it along with beef / dairy production in Ireland.

Of course if it does produce enough methane you could add a fuel cell and have the device self-powered;)

:D:D

melekalikimaka

I'm SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO lost...

Fenster

Fenster wrote: »

Option 3: I'm about to take a new prescription that I'm 90% sure will knock me the fcuk out. I won't be here to nurse the thread.

For the record, I was unconscious for a little under sixteen hours.