Author Topic: Artificial Lighting affecting Focus?  (Read 10134 times)

Akira

  • Homo jezoensis
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 12825
  • Tokyo, Japan
Re: Artificial Lighting affecting Focus?
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2016, 21:24:11 »
James, thanks for the details of the light source.  Apparently the LED is of an UV induced fluorescent type.

Frank, flickering high power LEDs reduces the heat.  By flickering, you can reduce the duration of the electric power pouring into the LEDs, which reduces the wattage per hour, which reduces the heat and elongate the life of LED chips.

I'm not sure whether the lighting system James is using is flickering, but that could be a potential reason for the problem.
"The eye is blind if the mind is absent." - Confucius

"Limitation is inspiration." - Akira

James Farrell

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Prescott, Arizona, USA
    • My Smugmug Site
Re: Artificial Lighting affecting Focus?
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2016, 21:47:53 »
James, thanks for the details of the light source.  Apparently the LED is of an UV induced fluorescent type.

Frank, flickering high power LEDs reduces the heat.  By flickering, you can reduce the duration of the electric power pouring into the LEDs, which reduces the wattage per hour, which reduces the heat and elongate the life of LED chips.

I'm not sure whether the lighting system James is using is flickering, but that could be a potential reason for the problem.
Notwithstanding the fact that doing all of this silly focus testing would be easier with natural sunlight, I wonder if it's possible that at the "Auto" flicker-reduction setting (in Nikon's camera setup menu) is not the best choice. I think I'll test this light with setting the Nikon flicker reduction setting at 60Hz (one of the settings available in the setup menu) instead of Auto-reduction. Maybe ... just maybe ... the camera is not able to correct for the right auto flicker reduction solution. In other words, maybe I should treat this light as a fluorescent fixture instead of an LED fixture. Thom Hogan suggests that if using fluorescent lighting to use shutter speeds that are multiples of 120 (120 volts AC and 60Hz), e.g., 1/30, 1/60, 1/120 etc.) and, of course, appropriate white balance.  This interesting (well, to me at least) issue has become more of a educational science experiment now versus a photography question.   
Jim F. from Prescott, Arizona

Akira

  • Homo jezoensis
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 12825
  • Tokyo, Japan
Re: Artificial Lighting affecting Focus?
« Reply #17 on: January 18, 2016, 22:02:37 »
The frequency of the flicker of LED lightings should be much higher than 50 or 60Hz because the LED reacts much faster to the on/off of the AC power supply than the fluorescent light bulbs (tubes).  The so-called switching power source is commonly used for the power source for the computers, audio amplifiers, etc.  The switching power source oscillates square waves of very high frequency out of the audible range.  I'm not sure whether such a power source is used for this particular product.  But if it uses a switching power source, the anti-flicker function of any digital cameras that are optimized for 50/60Hz wouldn't work or make any difference.
"The eye is blind if the mind is absent." - Confucius

"Limitation is inspiration." - Akira

Seapy

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 830
Re: Artificial Lighting affecting Focus?
« Reply #18 on: January 18, 2016, 22:08:03 »
Late to the party but I did some research a while back because I needed a cooler (ºC) light source for my copy stand.  I have been using two 80W halogen floodlights but they got very hot, and consumed much electric when copying images for many hours. Also the halogens were too warm (ºK) for accurate colour reproduction.  Daylight isn't an option in my situation.

Eventually I found these GU10 lamps which are pretty good compromise, the spectrum while not full, is the best I have found and they seem to do a much better job than the halogen units without the heat.  They are not in what I consider to be an expensive price range, ~£4.50 ish, from memory?  Compared with my Nichia 365Nm UV chip they are for nothing!

The "Switching Cycles" frequency quoted in the spec's is 50,000Hz.   I don't see such a high frequency affecting the AF?  More likely the gappy spectrum I would have thought?

These lamps were by far the best spectrum I could find, some had complete gaps and spikes.

http://www.farnell.com/datasheets/1782809.pdf



I chose the 4,000ºK lamps and use six of them to illuminate my copy stand, they are on adjustable mounts, three each side, so I can move them as required to make the illumination even depending on the subject. The gap on blue-green doesn't seem to make a noticeable difference in my eyes anyway.
Robert C. P.
South Cumbria, UK

Akira

  • Homo jezoensis
  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 12825
  • Tokyo, Japan
Re: Artificial Lighting affecting Focus?
« Reply #19 on: January 18, 2016, 22:54:13 »
Robert, thanks for the follow-up.  Judging from the spectrum chart, these seem to be of the blue/purple (sorry, not UV!) induced yellow fluorescence type.
"The eye is blind if the mind is absent." - Confucius

"Limitation is inspiration." - Akira

Seapy

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 830
Re: Artificial Lighting affecting Focus?
« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2016, 23:31:43 »
Akira, you posted while I was composing.  We seem to agree on the frequency thing. There is little or no UV output but a little IR in these lamps, others vary a lot,  it would be good to be able to see the output spectrum for other lamps but most manufacturers don't seem to publish that data.
Robert C. P.
South Cumbria, UK

Andy

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 314
Re: Artificial Lighting affecting Focus?
« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2016, 00:07:53 »
James,
back in January 2011, the D7000 was just released, I used the new camera with the then current generation of fast lenses (AFS 24mm/1.4G, AFS 35mm/1.4G, AFS 85mm/1.4G). Much to my disappointment, the AF was way off for longer distance when shooting with an open aperture. What started as a seemingly simple issue to just correct a misaligned AF module in the D7000, became a much broader effort. Over the course of a few months the error "extended" to many more combinations in my gear set.

Ultimately,
the following camera's made the trip to Nikon's main service center for Central Europe multiple times: D7000, D3, D3s, D3x, plus the following lenses: AFS 24mm/1.4G, AFS 35mm/1.4G, AFS 85mm/1.4G, AFS 24-70mm/2.8, AFS 200mm/2 VR, AFS 70-200mm VR1, AF 85mm/1.4D. (many more lenses were impacted, but I didn't sent all. The lenses above represented a good sample). Some of the gear made the trip 3 or 4 times. As the backfocus/frontfocus pattern had so many variations (camera/lens/type of light/focus distance combinations), I sent in the whole gear set to allow the Nikon technicans to check their desired combinations as well. I spent many hours to use a similar lens cal device like you (lenscal) to check AF precision and had many phone conversations with the Nikon staff in the service facility in Düsseldorf (their main facility in Central Europe). Sent Nikon extensive test protocols and pictures to support their work finding the "pattern" of the errors.

I documented many of my findings in a thread in the german NFF forum. Sorry, it is in german, but anyway, here is the link for those who can read german, or use machine translation:
http://www.nikon-fotografie.de/vbulletin/nikon-d7000/151532-fokusprobleme-mit-neuen-lichtstarken-objektiven.html


In hindsight, a few things I remember (almost 5 years already passed by):
1) First check should always be if your lens is decentered. Particular important if you use an AF cross sensor on the testpattern. Makes your AF measurement random.
2) AF adjustment in the camera is distance related. Adjusting the focus at 3m right is no guarantee that it is equally precise at 10m.
3) Faster lenses are more affected (due to shallower focus). Only f2.8 or faster lenses are impacted. Focal length doesn't make a difference if a lens would be impacted or not.
4) Most affected where the generation of cameras between 2007 and 2010. With the D800/D4, quick checks didn't produce this erratic behavior of the previous generation.
5) Quality of light definitely impacted AF test results (incandescent, outdoor, daylight bulbs, ...).
6) Nikon's factory error margin for the D7000 AF was outside my understanding what infocus or back/front focus means (The D7000 was the first 16MP DX Camera and my camera came early - don't know if the QA process was later adjusted)). FYI, Nikon's guidelines prescribed a 50mm with f2.8 to calibrate the AF
7) Lower cost cameras as well as higher priced cameras where affected
8.) One lens (AFS 24mm/1.4G) was replaced by Nikon
9) After 2 months focussing on AF focus issues, the situation improved to a state, that it was sufficient for me.
10) The D2X and D2Xs where not affected, the D300 and D300s to a smaller degree
11) I learned a lot about potential AF errors.
12) It was my first needed engagement with Nikon's service organisation - until then, things worked fine
13) I am now much more relaxed about AF systems :) (but I am still curious about the performance of the D5 and D500 AF systems :) )

Please let me know if you have any further question, happy to try to answer it. Good luck with your gear.

rgds,
Andy

PS:
I can't find the info anymore but I believe I've read years later, that the randomization in the AF systems were due to IR sensitivity in the AF module. But as said, just a memory snippet.

James Farrell

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Prescott, Arizona, USA
    • My Smugmug Site
Re: Artificial Lighting affecting Focus?
« Reply #22 on: January 19, 2016, 01:14:19 »
The frequency of the flicker of LED lightings should be much higher than 50 or 60Hz because the LED reacts much faster to the on/off of the AC power supply than the fluorescent light bulbs (tubes).  The so-called switching power source is commonly used for the power source for the computers, audio amplifiers, etc.  The switching power source oscillates square waves of very high frequency out of the audible range.  I'm not sure whether such a power source is used for this particular product.  But if it uses a switching power source, the anti-flicker function of any digital cameras that are optimized for 50/60Hz wouldn't work or make any difference.
I think I understand this well enough to draw a few conclusions that the LED lights I've tried to use will be useless for indoor lighting with my Nikon bodies, and best used to illuminate the driveway for night-time snowshoveling (yes, where I live in Arizona I get snow). One interesting and perhaps telling characteristic is that despite the very high lumen power (3,000) of this fixture which is only 40 watts, it hardly produces any heat.

Thanks to all the contributors to this very informative discussion: Akira, Bjorn, Frank, Andrea, Seapy, Olvind, and Andy (if I omitted anyone, I apologize). Thanks again, Jim
Jim F. from Prescott, Arizona

pluton

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 2687
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: Artificial Lighting affecting Focus?
« Reply #23 on: January 19, 2016, 04:40:49 »
You can demonstrate the pulsed nature of LED illumination by swinging your camera rapidly past some LED lights with the shutter open and pointed at the lights.  Same as with sodium and mercury vapor, fluorescent tubes and neon signs.
Even the expensive, so-called "high color rendering index' (high CRI) LED lamps intended for photographic use may require color correction filters in order to closely color-match traditional, continuous-spectrum photographic light sources such as daylight or tungsten.
EDIT:  Yesterday I rode past some still-deployed Christmas lights of the LED variety.  They must be going at a high frequency to make such small traces:

Keith B., Santa Monica, CA, USA