Timeline for Why are infrared images not great?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 23, 2021 at 10:32 | answer | added | Ruslan | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 23, 2021 at 0:52 | answer | added | BowlOfRed | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 23, 2021 at 0:30 | comment | added | Triatticus | hmmmm the biggest issue is likely because the temperatures that decide the coloring are much more of a gradient than in the visible ranges, you're "seeing" heat not visible light reflecting off a surface. So the heat in a body doesn't have sharpe edges and this might be what you're seeing. Along with the below answer for there not being a market (or physical capability) to make smaller pixels. You can probably draw a direct parallel to images with very low numbers of pixels. | |
| Jan 23, 2021 at 0:21 | answer | added | user137289 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 23, 2021 at 0:18 | comment | added | Eli Bartlett | @Triatticus Google 'people infrared images' and what comes up are red/green/blue blobs of human outlines where the larger details are present. Yes, they are useful, I've not made any statements on their use, I'm just curious about what is stopping IR photography from being as detailed as visible photos. | |
| Jan 23, 2021 at 0:09 | comment | added | Triatticus | I'm not sure what you quantify as 'great' here, such a thing would be very subjective. I see these images and think they are doing exactly what they are supposed to. | |
| Jan 23, 2021 at 0:05 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 23, 2021 at 2:12 | |||||
| Jan 23, 2021 at 0:01 | history | asked | Eli Bartlett | CC BY-SA 4.0 |