Safe camera for baby's room ??

[I want my CCTV 0]

Hi all,

 

I'm expecting a baby in a few months and would like to add a camera in the baby's room. Now when the baby sleeps it will be dark and I was wondering if the IR cameras could harm the baby in any way. Is there a camera out there that would be suitable for my application?

I have an existing stand alone ready for this camera.

 

Any help is appreciated.

[phred 0]

Intense Ifra Red can damage the retina of the eye. How much it takes to damage a baby's eyes is undocumented.

Much safer to use low level conventional light.

 

You may wonder how this can be, when sunlight contains so much infra red.

 

Sunlight contains visible light that causes the iris of the eye to close.

The eye does not respond to infra red, so in darkness, under infra red

light, the iris will stay full open and the retina will get the full whack.

 

 

 

You will get better results for the money if you stick with black and white cameras.

[I want my CCTV 0]

Thanks phred. How low of a lux should I go if I want to watch the little one in virtual darkness?

[phred 0]

No light = no image, unless you use a thermal imaging camera (you don't want one -trust me).

 

You will need to provide some light but a low watt soft light from a small

lamp is all you need. You can move it around for best results.

 

Unfortunately the lux figures they give in camera specs are often exaggerated.

Brand name cameras tend to be more honest so don't be confused by

what looks like a lower spec for a higher price.

 

There are some inexpensive b&w bullet cameras – ones without LEDs but

with grossly exaggerated spec - they should give you a decent image. For

better quality nothing will beat a proper box camera and lens.

 

 

Just as a guide, bright moonlight is 0.1 Lux

 

 

Btw my own kids would freak if they woke up in pitch darkness.

 

good luck

[fpc3 0]

I am concerned with the number of video baby monitors being sold with infrared lighting... It seems all of them have IR LEDs.

 

When you state that "intense" IR light can be damaging, would several LEDs emitting IR be considered intense?

 

And can you provide a link to the source of your statement regarding your IR lighting concerns?

 

Can it be said that a "limited" amount of IR light is safe to a baby's or to a pet's eyes? The "limited" amount would have to be an amount sufficient to provide adequate lighting for one of the cheap 1/4" CMOS devices.

 

Thank you,

Frank

[Scruit 0]

I'm not a professional, just a home user.

 

 

I have a camera in my toddler's room - it's been there since soon after he was born. It also has sound. This is hooked up to the tv in my den so I can switch over to the baby-cam if I hear noise from his room.

 

The camera is a cheapo ebay B&W which is sensitive to low-light, but has no IR leds. pretty much the saem reasoning here - I don't know what effect the light would have on him etc.

 

At first we had a night-light in his room which provided enough light that the camera can easily tell if he's moving around in bed or if he's settled - and that's all it really needs to do. I don't need to identify a burglar or anything. The sound helps with that also. It's proven to be most useful when we hear him screaming in his room we can switch over to the camera and listen to what he's screaming about, usually wants water/milk or a toy - then we can take that straight to him rather than making a seperate trip upstairs to figure out what he wants. This is another "had a spare camera" type of project rather than actually buying the caemra just for this.

 

These days (3yo) he insists on having his desk lamp on all night - it has a 14w compact flurescent bulb that provides ample light.

[fpc3 0]

Thank you for the reply.

 

Since I sent the previous post, I received the following from a Customer Care Rep from one of the video baby monitor manufacturers:

 

"The infrared lighting for the monitor is not harmful to the baby’s eyes. They have been tested for the safety of the babies. You should have nothing to worry about.

 

Thanks,

Robert ..... [last name removed]

Customer Care Representative"

 

 

I had asked for some sort of varifiable link to address my concerns. I don't know that his response has made me feel any better. However, I would imagine that the video monitor manufacturers have documented evidence that no damage is caused by infrared lighting... (maybe??)

 

Frank

[Scruit 0]

"They have been tested for the safety of the babies.

 

Well, I'm not saying that I know them to be harmful, just that I don't know them to be safe.

 

 

You would be amazed at how much light those IR LEDS put out. Even a remote control for TV my was able to light up my whole arm standing 5' away from the camera and 3' from the remote control, even with the lights in the room on. To my untrained eye the light level appeared to be roughly equivalent to a 2AA flashlight - although I have no equipment that will measure the comparative light levels.

 

The only subject I know less about than CCTV is medicine, so this advice is worth what you paid for it... For me the biggest concern was the fear that IR, being invisible to humans, would not cause the human iris to close to reduce the light level hitting the back of the eye. Therefore it would be like when you get those dilating drops at the optician's office and then go outside - your eyes cannot close to reduce the light and it's uncomfortable.

 

Well, imagine that all that light is streaming into your eyes, and they are not reducing the iris to compensate. You cannot see or feel the discomfort.

 

So, it seems reasonable to believe that the IR light is flooding into the eyes without much control... The question is, does that IR light have any effect on the eye? The rods and cones are not sensitive to that light, so will it affect them? It may be that the IR light hitting the back of the eye has zero effect, but that's the bit I really just don't know about. I know the light gets in there, but I don't know if that makes a difference.

 

When it comes to "I don't know if this is hurting my child or not" I tend to err on the side of caution.

[fpc3 0]

I agree with erring on the side of caution. I am just surprised that there isn't more definitive evidence to support the issue either way.

 

The only concrete information we have so far is that many companies are willing to sell products that indeed shine Infrared light into eyes of babies, pets, and others. I don't know that I have read any note of caution regarding the pointing of remotes into ones eyes.

 

And further, it seems that the companies are not being badgered by legal proceedings. That would tend to indicate that the public has not addressed the issue formally, which would further indicate that no damage to eyes has been tied to infrared light exposure - at least not that we know about.

 

The search for knowledge continues...

 

Frank

[kensplace 0]

HP has warnings in manuals for a number of its products (portables etc) that include IR leds - warning you not to look at the led. Even if its not proven beyond a doubt to be safe/unsafe erring on the side of caution is always good. Remember the big shuttle explosion that killed all the astronauts? The o-ring manufacturers engineers said they knew it would be unsafe - BUT the management wanted provable facts. Engineers could only provide evidence, and experience, but not clear cut facts, so despite the engineers saying no to the launch, the management said yes, and the astronauts all died.

[marzsit 0]

the really hazardous light that damages human eyes and causes sunburns is ultraviolet, not infrared. however, i'm not an expert at all in ir led theory... i do know that infrared light is most often associated with heat and observing hot objects, such as staring into a campfire and observing the pile of hot coals glowing.... in such as case, i would think that the infrared light from a pile of hot coals (not flames from the fire itself..) at close range would be totally off-the-scale on any ir indicating device, yet i've never met anyone who went blind from staring into a campfire. how much uv light is actually produced by ir led's? could you put a uv filter over an ir light emitter and still have the camera see just the ir light, or are the cameras also uv sensitive? just rambling here....

[cctv_down_under 0]

I can tell you this, however I am no expert in Infared technology, especially with leds as I have only used Halogen lamps but you may want to know that the human eye can see up to 780nm but in all honesty the sensitivity above 700nm is very weak indeed, so in reality we as humans can see up to 700-715nm.

 

The wavelengths for Infrared are usually above 700nm

 

It is correct that the human iris will stay open in some people (depends on their own sensitivity) because it can not see any light in the dark the iris opens to allow light in, and allowing infrared light in can cause blindness (I am still refering to halogen lamps here), this is only likely to occur when you are very close to the illuminator at night and there is no lighting causing the iris to open.

 

You could hold your hand near the device and feel for heat, because heat is Infrared Radiation.

 

The other thing to consider is the dispersion of the Infrared light..for example a bullet camera may have a narrow dispersion, this allows the light to travel further, but keep in mind a childs room is small and the camera is not as highly mounted as it would be for outside, so is it dangerous to concentrate the light on the baby's face...I would guess so. (Once again still talking about lamps)

 

The 7W, 15W and 50W LED's are not as powerfull as the lamps so I have no idea if they could be damaging but there is another type of infrared used and that is the Infrared Laser Diode and this radiates light into one coherant beam concentrating the light in a small area I would avoid this type of device.

 

Longer Wavelength photons penetrate the CCD more easily and cameras without a cut filter are even more sensitive to it.

 

There are two wavelengths most typically used with Haogen style lamps one starting at 715 nm and one at around 830nm, but visable IR lights are around 830nm.

 

The infrared radiation is not one single frequency, it is a continuous spectrum starting from whichever wavelength you choose.

 

Halogen lamps radiate a lot of heat, but for a kids room it is unlikely that you would ever use one, this is why halogen lamps do not last long because even with heat sinks they still run very hot.

 

I am sorry about not knowing about LED's and I assume they are fairly harmless, but I would not consider any that concentrate the beam on the childs face, if you could find one with a wide spread and make it as far away as possible that would be the safest.

 

LED's are completely different to lamps so I can not answer your question on that.

 

~ I hope this helps

[Scruit 0]

yet i've never met anyone who went blind from staring into a campfire.

 

Your eyes can see the visible light from a campfire and the iris will close.

[Scruit 0]

so is it dangerous to concentrate the light on the baby's face...I would guess so. (Once again still talking about lamps)

 

The ads on the baby cameras always seem show the sleeping baby's head taking up all the shot.

[CollinR 0]

the really hazardous light that damages human eyes and causes sunburns is ultraviolet, not infrared. however, i'm not an expert at all in ir led theory... i do know that infrared light is most often associated with heat and observing hot objects, such as staring into a campfire and observing the pile of hot coals glowing.... in such as case, i would think that the infrared light from a pile of hot coals (not flames from the fire itself..) at close range would be totally off-the-scale on any ir indicating device, yet i've never met anyone who went blind from staring into a campfire. how much uv light is actually produced by ir led's? could you put a uv filter over an ir light emitter and still have the camera see just the ir light, or are the cameras also uv sensitive? just rambling here....

 

 

Most cameras have a UV filter, as UV light scatters in our atmosphere. This is also partially why you can see through things with IR that you cannot with visable light. IR light isn't scattered by the air however it doesn't ultimately travel as far either. This has more to do with the makeup of our atmosphere then anything else though. In a vacuum the outcome is different.

 

As was mentioned campfires produce visable light too so your pupils (iris Scruit lol) will close to prevent damage. UV is the same we can't percieve it so our pupils stay open letting possibly too much through. I know I have seen spots from staring into a campfire before however nobody cares.

 

Anyone who has spend much time servicing real IR gear knows you will see spots eventually. Not good... Also not the same level of IR either.

 

UV is WAY more damaging then IR all around, it is just like with sound a subwoofer (lower frequency) has more more destructive ability then a tweeter (higher frequency). Same for it's ablity to move through stuff, you can hear jack@ss's subs a 1/2 mile away but not much else. Same way UV goes right through your eyelids so closing your eyes doesn't help.

 

I seriously doubt the IR bullets on the consumer market have anywhere near the output needed to really do damage. Your eyes are exposed to soo many multiples of IR every day when you go outside. Even with your pupils contracted there is still such a massive amount of IR out there. I just can't see it being a big health concern.

 

Me personally I would do like I have suggested in the past, just use a low light BW camera and a normal night light. Better safe then sorry I guess.

[fpc3 0]

thanks for all your comments and replys.

 

Infrared LEDs are typically either 850 nm or 920 nm. The 850's emit a very (very) faint red glow - not enough to affect the pupil - the pupil stays completely open. The 920's are totally invisible and, again, do not affect the pupil. The power of the strongest LED I have seen is 5 watts. But the ones used for lighting in the cameras in question are more like 25 to 50 mW... .025 watts. They are at room temperature to the touch. But some of the cameras use 30 of those. Some use 6. So, I think the power is quite low. But the distance to the face is pretty short. The dispersion angles of LEDs range from 10 degrees to 40 ... 20 is pretty typical.

 

The IR "blocker" filter is removed from the little cameras to allow the IR image to strike the cmos or CCD sensor.

 

UV light is on the opposite end of the visible light spectrum, so there would be no UV light emitted from an IR LED. But I do think that a part of this stigma is that we have always been told not to look at UV light because it can damage our eyes. And the laser light is back into the visible spectrum so that is not tied to IR. Hadn't thought about and don't know about coals -- I would think the spectrum emitted from them is nowhere near the 900 nm range. It would be more into the thermo spectrum... (?)

 

Are cautions stated for the use of IR halogen light? From what you are saying, IR halogen light is much more intense than an LED. I would think that someone who gave little credence to or didn't appreciate the danger of the heat and brightness of a halogen lamp, could use one for a pet's or baby's sleep area (??) -- A whole new, but related area for concern. I imagine they run on 110vac, so they would be easier to deal with than an LED. Is the IR light emitted from a halogen light visible?

 

Thanks again for the help with this issue. While I would like to take full advantage of technology, I do not want to risk damage to a person or pet.

 

Frank

[rory 0]

LEDs and Bulbs have both hurt my eyes in the past where they burned for days afterwards .. so its really up to you guys ..

[fpc3 0]

I just received a second reply from the manufacturer:

 

"I do not have any documentation on the computer that I can send you. The Vice President of the quality dept informed on this behalf. I do apologize.

 

Thanks,"

 

Wouldn't one think that this is serious enough to at least have some sort of documentation to show that some sort of testing has occurred? --> That assumes, of course, that some sort of research was conducted prior to the manufacture and sale of the products.

 

Collin - Good point regarding exposure to IR light everyday even though your pupil is quite small, IR light does get in. That makes me think that the amount of IR light you are exposed to daily would exceed the amount of IR light you would "see" from a low power LED.

 

You mentioned seeing spots when you work with IR light a lot... These are spots that do not heal? And they come about from dealing with some sort of high power IR light source?

 

Thanks,

Frank

[rory 0]

Ge here for some safety reports on IR, these are the IR experts:

http://www.extremecctv.com/products.php?producttype_id=1

[CollinR 0]

Collin - Good point regarding exposure to IR light everyday even though your pupil is quite small, IR light does get in. That makes me think that the amount of IR light you are exposed to daily would exceed the amount of IR light you would "see" from a low power LED.

 

You mentioned seeing spots when you work with IR light a lot... These are spots that do not heal? And they come about from dealing with some sort of high power IR light source?

 

Thanks,

Frank

 

I think your first assumption is probably pretty sound, there is a whole lot of IR coming from the sun... Consumer "baby monitors" aren't in the same league.

 

It's just like welding and skiing, the spots fade but if you do it enough... Just getting sun blind from IR even slightly makes it obvious that it can and does negatively effect our eyes in some way or another.

 

OSHA says something like 42.5db (action level) over time can cause hearing damage and 84db for 8 hours a day will. 42.5db is not considered "loud" to many people.

 

Then again they don't require testing past 6Khz so you can still not be disabled from hearing loss and legitimately not hear you wife too. What a deal.

[fpc3 0]

Thanks for the link to Extreme rory. I just read it and find it very close to the point. Like any test, it has to make a lot of assumptions, but, in my uneducated opinion, the assumptions seem reasonable. The conclusion of the tests conducted are as follows:

 

1. There is no infrared hazard to the cornea or crystalline lens at any reasonable exposure distance.

2. There is no risk of retinal injury

3. The infrared radiant exposure and time of exposure for the worst case scenario fall below the recommended threshold limiting values; there is no risk of thermal injury to the cornea, or of possible delayed effects to the ocular lens, or to the retina.

 

This appears to be good news.

[rory 0]

Yep, well I was blind before I messed with IR so im not a good example

Plus what Ive been messing with is stuff like the UF100s and UF500s, in the case of the UF500 it will burn your skin within 3 feet of it!

 

Though even with the smaller IR cameras, such as the D/N IR Bullets with like a 50' Spot, inside a small Room thats going to hurt your eyes looking at it, cause in essense looking at any light of that size directly would do so .. well it did hurt my eyes .. but do i think it caused permanent damage .. doubtful. The sun is much stronger here than that alone, and goodness knows what kind of radiation ive been getting from my CRT TV (and previous PC Monitor) over the years.

 

Safest bet is to just fit the kids cot with a tinted sun roof

[fpc3 0]

Wow!! Those lamps must be extremely bright. I sincerely hope you guys treat them with respect and do not look into them directly.

 

I just emailed the eye safety article to the guy representing the manufacturer of the baby monitoring video system. We shall see if he has comments. I wish he would open up a bit. The fact that he is keeping his cards so close to his vest concerns me. It is hard to believe that they just gave this issue no thought whatsoever to begin with. It does seem, however, that he is not providing information intentionally. - Maybe an attitude of Don't Rock the Boat.

 

Perhaps we will hear more "real world" examples, such as yours, of what people have experienced in this regard.

 

Frank