Instrument Lighting & Paint Testing

[Gary Lewis]

I don't mean to counter what he's said, but I have some background and understand a lot of that is gibberish.

Pigments flouresce or phosphorese because *ultraviolet or violet* light is exciting the atoms and they throw out photons in response.

Only these higher frequency waves have the energy to do this.

Green is in the middle of the visible light spectrum and will do nothing.

Red is on the other end of visible light from violet, but it does nothing to negate the photons produced by atoms in the pigment (other than being part of the total light output of the LED's phosphor, while not contributing to the glow)

Translucency is a positive.

Chunks in the paint are not helping anything but diffraction.

Pigments can be ground as fine as you want.

This reaction is happening on an atomic or molecular level.

When someone shows me that they can physically grind molecules and atoms to dust so they no longer have their properties I will be VERY impressed!

David - I've only had 3 cups of Starbuck's strongest today, so I doubt I need more right now.

Jim - I understand what you are saying. But I'm just going to focus on the quantifiable, meaning what the camera captures. (I'm assuming what it captures is what the eye can see, but will do my best to confirm that.)

As I did yesterday, I'll put the camera on a tripod and use the self-timer to ensure there's no vibration and we get a sharp picture. And, as said, I'll start with the incandescent bulbs and blue filters as the baseline, and then progress from there.

[Danny G]

UPDATE: I got a note back from Bill of HiPo Parts pointing out some errors in my testing. So I've added the following to the first post:

EDIT: Bill of HiPo Parts has gotten back to me and advised that my testing about the paint and its ability to fluoresce is flawed. I will be editing this post to reflect on what I learn, soon. In the interim, I've modified what I posted about the paint.......

UPDATE from Bill of HiPo Parts: "Our paint does have a texture, by design. That texture is the fluorescent pigment. Fluorescent pigment is a solid, so it does make the paint have a slight texture. The other thing I did not see mentioned is that our paint is semi-translucent by design. That allows the light to partially penetrate the surface and reach pigment below the surface to increase the illumination effect."

UPDATE from Bill of HiPo Parts: "Fluorescent paint requires a portion of the blue light spectrum to excite the pigment (make it glow). If you are using white light, then the other portions of the spectrum (specifically the red) negate the effects of the blue spectrum. This is why the dashes of vehicles that use fluorescent paints are normally illuminated in some shade of blue or green light. Both of those colors are capable of exciting the pigment. Trying to make a fluorescent paint glow with white light is not going to have much of an effect, if any."

And, when I learn more from Bill I'll be back to correct and add more.

lol like I said hit it with a little uv light and watch it go.

[ArdWrknTrk]

UPDATE: I got a note back from Bill of HiPo Parts pointing out some errors in my testing. So I've added the following to the first post:

EDIT: Bill of HiPo Parts has gotten back to me and advised that my testing about the paint and its ability to fluoresce is flawed. I will be editing this post to reflect on what I learn, soon. In the interim, I've modified what I posted about the paint.......

UPDATE from Bill of HiPo Parts: "Our paint does have a texture, by design. That texture is the fluorescent pigment. Fluorescent pigment is a solid, so it does make the paint have a slight texture. The other thing I did not see mentioned is that our paint is semi-translucent by design. That allows the light to partially penetrate the surface and reach pigment below the surface to increase the illumination effect."

UPDATE from Bill of HiPo Parts: "Fluorescent paint requires a portion of the blue light spectrum to excite the pigment (make it glow). If you are using white light, then the other portions of the spectrum (specifically the red) negate the effects of the blue spectrum. This is why the dashes of vehicles that use fluorescent paints are normally illuminated in some shade of blue or green light. Both of those colors are capable of exciting the pigment. Trying to make a fluorescent paint glow with white light is not going to have much of an effect, if any."

And, when I learn more from Bill I'll be back to correct and add more.

lol like I said hit it with a little uv light and watch it go.

Hit it with a violet laser and look out!

I've been playing with LED's since the '60's.

Many were as big as the tip of my pinky and still weren't bright enough to be seen in daylight.

I understand the few wavelengths that LED's can actually produce depending on their doping.

I understand the colors emitted by them depending on the phosphors laid down or overlayed on them.

I understand how slight variations in doping -or- phosphor get binned and how tight a wavelength is actually possible.

.... not as pure as some lasers though.

After decades of red and green LED's blue LED's were a marvel when they were first produced in Japan.

The science is there

The facts are there.

While I'm very happy with all the HiPo parts I have bought, my feathers are really ruffled reading that "stuff"

 

[ArdWrknTrk]

David - I've only had 3 cups of Starbuck's strongest today, so I doubt I need more right now.

Jim - I understand what you are saying. But I'm just going to focus on the quantifiable, meaning what the camera captures. (I'm assuming what it captures is what the eye can see, but will do my best to confirm that.)

As I did yesterday, I'll put the camera on a tripod and use the self-timer to ensure there's no vibration and we get a sharp picture. And, as said, I'll start with the incandescent bulbs and blue filters as the baseline, and then progress from there.

Actually most camera sensors are pretty sensitive way down into the infrared.

They use filters to block or reduce what makes it to the sensor.

If you want to see what a pit viper (like an adder or rattlesnake) does, pull the filter off.

Or use it for improvised night vision.

[Gary Lewis]

Actually most camera sensors are pretty sensitive way down into the infrared.

They use filters to block or reduce what makes it to the sensor.

If you want to see what a pit viper (like an adder or rattlesnake) does, pull the filter off.

Or use it for improvised night vision.

The filters make the camera "see" pretty much what our eyes see, which is obviously why they are there. But every camera is different.

I have three Nikons, from the 990 sold in 2000, to the Coolpix S9700 of 2014 that I've been using, to the D7500 that is fairly recent. But the S9700 seems to capture pretty much what I'm seeing. However, when I test the fluorescent paint I'll watch that more closely and see if I can tell a difference.

[swampedout]

The filters make the camera "see" pretty much what our eyes see, which is obviously why they are there. But every camera is different.

I have three Nikons, from the 990 sold in 2000, to the Coolpix S9700 of 2014 that I've been using, to the D7500 that is fairly recent. But the S9700 seems to capture pretty much what I'm seeing. However, when I test the fluorescent paint I'll watch that more closely and see if I can tell a difference.

Hey Gary, Im sure you know this since you are pretty savvy with computers and have good cameras but you might try downloading one of the light meter apps onto your phone to see how much light they pick up. Ive never used any of them and I dont know how accurate theyd be especially at such low levels but since youre going to such lengths to compare, maybe it is a way of creating comparable "numbers".

Other than that, as long as your camera levels are set manually and remain the same, we can all be the judges.

[Gary Lewis]

Hey Gary, Im sure you know this since you are pretty savvy with computers and have good cameras but you might try downloading one of the light meter apps onto your phone to see how much light they pick up. Ive never used any of them and I dont know how accurate theyd be especially at such low levels but since youre going to such lengths to compare, maybe it is a way of creating comparable "numbers".

Other than that, as long as your camera levels are set manually and remain the same, we can all be the judges.

Sam - I moved this comment here, where it belongs, and will then move your response after it.

ETM - Good idea! I hadn't thought of that. Do you have a recommended app? I looked and there are several.