Jump to content

Click Here To Visit Our Sponsor

- - - - -

No More Niteshot?

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 kawika



  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 13 July 2009 - 02:43 AM

Hello everybody. I'm new here and already have a question!

I was up at the USS Hornet in Alameda, CA recently and was talking with a fellow investigator from from another group. He said that it's too bad the hard drive cameras from Sony don't have niteshot. I expressed confusion, as I have an SR-12 and it definitely has niteshot capability. In fact, I used it to film the sick bay for 11.5 hours and am SO looking forward to reviewing that video. /sarcasm

I then talked to one of my team members who is very familiar with Sony products and she told me that the newest hard drive cameras do NOT have niteshot because Sony has developed good enough technology to film in 0 lux. I see both good and bad in this.

The good. Firstly, no more needing an extra light source (IR Illuminators) for an area, which cuts down on power and space requirements. Secondly, the theoretical ability to really film in total darkness, which can allow for less false positives due to shadows and reflection from other sources. Lastly, this may allow for better picture clarity in total darkness.

The bad? I'm really not sure on this one, honestly. During the last few years, it's all been about the IR. However, what most cameras catch is really only the near IR wavelengths and does not usually include deep IR. Still, it was better than nothing because you could film a large area and have it be illuminated with an IR spotlight or similar gadget. But, due to the wavelength of IR, images tend to be more grainy and fuzzy. (I'm currently debating on whether it's really worth the money to have a hi def camera if all you do is film in IR, but that's a different discussion.) Obviously, I haven't experimented with these cameras yet, but I wonder if the visible area covered by the 0 lux capable camera is reduced or is it the same as one that uses Niteshot. Also, are we less likely to capture activity by not filming in IR, even if it is only near IR? Certainly, the possibility of false positives can be reduced in some capacity, but are we missing anything because the 0 lux cameras aren't filming even the near IR range?

I've poked around a couple of other sites to see if anybody is talking about this yet and they're not, as far as I've seen. So there's no solid information out there from paranormal investigators about this that I've seen yet. What do you guys and gals think?

#2 kawika



  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Posted 13 July 2009 - 10:41 PM

...or not.

I took a look at sonystyle.com today and noticed the high end cameras have NightShot listed as a feature again with a minimal lux rating of 3. I wonder if they got a bunch of complaints or if the 0 lux models weren't working out so well for them?

#3 CaveRat2


    Village Elder

  • Town Council
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,782 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayette County, Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Serious Research and separating the truth from the hype in the paranormal field today.

Posted 15 July 2009 - 04:56 PM

Personally for a lot of reasons, most dealing with quality of the image, I don't recommend even using nightshot or IR. I have seen no real advantage, except it propensity to give false positives that recommend IR imaging. Better to use subdued light and record in the visible light spectrum, unless you intend to purchase the expensive lenses and imaging needed for professional work using IR.

Focal characteristics are slightly different than visible light, which is why the fuzzy images associated with IR. Unless you are going to use equipment which addresses this, then stick wit visible light. That is why IR is falling out of favor, no one wants the grainy images, and those who really want quality IR will spend the hundreds needed for the proper equipment.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users