Infrared night cameras - eye damage?

[RadarRider]

Hi,
I have been trying to find more info on this that makes sense with not much luck:

Can looking towards these night vision cabin cameras... all night look... lead to cornea, or retina, or any kind of damage. I have no idea what wavelengths and types of IR that the Diodes emit. I just want to know if this is part of what has been stressing me out and if it is contributing to my changes is vision.... etc...

 

[Dashmellow]

It's a little hard to say, but this article by Alex Kilpatrick, Ph.D, (founder of a facial recognition company that uses IR for biometrics) who spent some time looking into the question may help.

IR Illumination and Eye Safety​

The problem with IR emitters is that our eyes (pupils) do not react to it the way they do to bright visible light so there is little protection from infra-red light entering the eyeball. Then again, bright sunlight contains a lot of infra-red light and it is generally safe for our eyes unless we look directly into the sun for long periods of time. It is similar with IR emitters. It is very likely safe but best not to stare directly into bright IR emitters for long periods of time, especially at close range but being around ambient IR LED emitter light is probably OK.

 

[kamkar]

IR light for cameras, are often NIR ( Near Infra Red ) the wavelengths used are most often 850 nm ( you will be able to see a faint red glow looking at the emitter ) and 940 nm which are much less visible of not invisible looking at the emitter.
I think / assume we are safe when reasonable amounts are applied, we are after all bathed in IR lights thru out the daytime.
But yeah a cabin camera are right there in your face, so for sure you do not want the brand of camera maker to overdo it with the IR light on that camera.

Thats how i understand it at least.

 

[Dashmellow]

Yeah, having an interior cabin IR emitter from a dash cam pointed directly into your face for long periods of time may be something best avoided.

 

[kamkar]

At least avoid emitters with a focus, best to diffuse things.
The optimal light be having a separate emitter, you could place,,,, say over bu the R hand side A pillar.
The way i have the A139 interior camera right there on the mirror stalk, it is something to get used to as it is that much in your face, and it is bot the camera and IR emitters that bother me, but generally from my general hate of being videotaped or photographed.
But ! thinking about it, there might well be issues with a IR light that close, even if it is offset by 1/2 foot or so, and not aimed directly at me in the driver seat, i also know the emitters are not laser beams they do spread the light a little.

Assuming the IR diodes have the same properties ( spread ) as white LEDs which i am more familiar with as we have used those for light on our scale trucks for a long time.
And 2-3 of those in each headlight bucket and then 10 or so in a light bar on the roof, and you do not want to turn your RC car 180 degrees back at yourself in a pitch dark forest,,,,CUZ dammm a lot of light

 

[Nigel]

Hi,
I have been trying to find more info on this that makes sense with not much luck:

Can looking towards these night vision cabin cameras... all night look... lead to cornea, or retina, or any kind of damage. I have no idea what wavelengths and types of IR that the Diodes emit. I just want to know if this is part of what has been stressing me out and if it is contributing to my changes is vision.... etc...

High power IR lamps can cause damage to eyes and you should be very careful with them since by the time you notice the damage it is likely to be permanent, however the ones used in dashcams are very low power and are very wide angle. Definitely not recommended that you stare into them from 1cm distance at night, but there is no way a back seat passenger could be damaged and it seems highly unlikely that a driver's eyes could be either. Having said that, it is hard to prove that they are safe!

To get any damage, you would need to look directly at them for a long time, so for normal nighttime driving there is nothing to worry about. Just don't stare at them. The damage is done by heating, so small amounts where cooling is faster than heating cause zero damage.

Most dashcams use 940nm wavelength since people complain about 850 being slightly visible. There are only the two options available since the image sensors won't see them at wavelengths beyond 950. I've never seen a dashcam use more than 1 watt of power to drive the LEDs, which for an LED is not very much (that much is dangerous for lasers but not LEDs).

If anyone is adding extra IR spotlights to get great image quality in the rear, they should be very careful!

 

[Dashmellow]

"The most common eye disease associated with near-infrared radiation is cataracts. Prolonged exposure to IR radiation causes a gradual but irreversible opacity of the lens. Other forms of damage to the eye from IR exposure include scotoma, which is a loss of vision due to the damage to the retina."

There is a relationship between near IR intensity and exposure time. Strong IR light can cause damage more quickly. Distance to the light source plays a role as well. Lower power IR light may not necessarily cause cataracts or scotoma but if exposure is prolonged and at close range even low-level IR absorption can apparently "cause symptoms such as redness of the eye, swelling, or hemorrhaging". The fact is that although the risks appear to be very low, we really do not yet know for certain what the long term effects of having IR LEDs shining in your eyes from a half meter or less away from your face while driving for extended periods such as on a long road trip might have on the human eye.

I suppose if I were an Uber driver I would probably use an internal facing IR camera because the benefits of having such a camera probably outweigh the risks shorter term. As a non livery driver I would opt to avoid having IR LEDs shining in my face and eyes for extended periods of time.

Near‐Infrared Exposure and Cataracts​

"The most common eye disease associated with near-infrared radiation is cataracts. Prolonged exposure to IR radiation causes a gradual but irreversible opacity of the lens. Other forms of damage to the eye from IR exposure include scotoma, which is a loss of vision due to the damage to the retina. Even low-level IR absorption can cause symptoms such as redness of the eye, swelling, or hemorrhaging."

 

[Nigel]

Near‐Infrared Exposure and Cataracts
"The most common eye disease associated with near-infrared radiation is cataracts. Prolonged exposure to IR radiation causes a gradual but irreversible opacity of the lens. Other forms of damage to the eye from IR exposure include scotoma, which is a loss of vision due to the damage to the retina. Even low-level IR absorption can cause symptoms such as redness of the eye, swelling, or hemorrhaging."

Should remember that sunlight contains large amounts of near IR relative to what you will get from a dashcam. Yes, sunlight can cause cataracts.
But the normal worry about cataracts is for people working with furnaces and other very hot jobs where the IR is millions of times brighter than a dashcam.

 

[RadarRider]

Thanks, one of the best threads ever. I was going to get the VIOFO a139, but the places I was going to mount the rear camera were in my face or above/below the rear view mirror. It has superior night vision in the cabin.

For now I have ordered the Vantrue N4. As much as I would like a clear view of what the passengers are doing... a little is enough if it means saving my eyesight. I will keep it far enough to the left behind the rear view so the IR emitters are blocked from my line of sight. (USA) The only other option would be to make a mini shroud (either per diode or as a whole) to attach to the camera to shield the IR LEDs from my line of sight.

sort of like these: I can do it, but not this week.

One last thought is that installing between the rear-view mirror and the electronics behind it might interfere with the airbags should they deploy... possibly adding to injury in a wreck.



My Vantrue N2 Pro was awesome for 2 years!.. until the battery crapped out. A warranty with Asurion on Amazon got me a gift card to help pay for another. Have great beautiful videos set to RUSH driving from Seatle to BC Vancouver... even with dingy skies.

Guess one other question is how about the IR light refracting off objects?



I used to have better than 2020 and amazing night vision. Could see galaxies in detail. Now I need bifocals... and it sucks. I do not want my vision to get any worse than normal progression if possible. The Viofo is hands down better for seeing in the back seat though... which is the main reason I have a dashcam. I have been sexually assaulted... had people trying to have sex in the back seat... Young people with guns... a woman non responsive at night... belligerent. rude, and rowdy passengers... People trying to drink... along with all the wonderful people: I would not want to do rideshare with out an inside camera.

Should remember that sunlight contains large amounts of near IR relative to what you will get from a dashcam. Yes, sunlight can cause cataracts.
But the normal worry about cataracts is for people working with furnaces and other very hot jobs where the IR is millions of times brighter than a dashcam.

Had to add: I learned a long time ago that sunglasses shade light which makes the pupils dialate to take in more light. That being said, if they do not block UV 100% this means that you are getting MORE UV to your retina than if you were not wearing sunglasses... (same for IR) so you are actually hurting your eyes. Do not buy sunglasses that do not block %100 UV. Getting them polarized also enhances vision as well by eliminating what I call frayed light. To add more: Many transitioning lenses (Darken with light exposure... UV light actually) will darken much less if in a car with UV blocking windshields and glass. Hence it is better to get non transitional (darkening) lenses for driving... for those that need it.

 

[Nigel]

The Viofo is hands down better for seeing in the back seat though... which is the main reason I have a dashcam.

I think one of the reasons for that is the use of a more sensitive sensor, which allows for lower brightness IR LEDS, which means the back seat is often half lit by street lighting rather than a bright IR spotlight which illuminates the front headrests so much that the back seat is underexposed. The IR from the A139 is also better spread over a wider angle than most dashcams.

I actually have my A139 internal camera mounted on the car interior lamp cluster, which means it is too far back for it to be able to get in the driver's eyes, but it has a great view of the back seat.

The LEDs on the A139 are completely sunk into the casing, so are already fully shielded to the sides.

 

[RadarRider]

I think one of the reasons for that is the use of a more sensitive sensor, which allows for lower brightness IR LEDS, which means the back seat is often half lit by street lighting rather than a bright IR spotlight which illuminates the front headrests so much that the back seat is underexposed. The IR from the A139 is also better spread over a wider angle than most dashcams.

I actually have my A139 internal camera mounted on the car interior lamp cluster, which means it is too far back for it to be able to get in the driver's eyes, but it has a great view of the back seat.

I had thought about that, but a bit awkward for my car... also, if I had a rider in the front seat.... it would miss them completely.

The LEDs on the A139 are completely sunk into the casing, so are already fully shielded to the sides.

Well damn! Now I just feel stupid. I would like to see your installation... and also figure out a way to see how shielded the diodes are being set back... what the front field of view is from the sides. Angle of dispersion? Not sure how to word that.
Obviously, I can still return the Vantrue if I want. Geeze... my eyes are hurting as I type this... heh. In one of the revies you could see the light hitting the driver's retinas... and it was actually super bright as his pupils were very dilated.

 

[Dashmellow]

Should remember that sunlight contains large amounts of near IR relative to what you will get from a dashcam. Yes, sunlight can cause cataracts.
But the normal worry about cataracts is for people working with furnaces and other very hot jobs where the IR is millions of times brighter than a dashcam.

Not sure what your point is.

I made it clear that IR LEDs do not cause cataracts (or scotoma) and I also said that risk is low.

My point was that there is evidence that long term exposure to low level infra-red light has been shown to stress and damage the eyes and can cause other types of damage than cataracts, especially at close range and we really do not yet know for certain what the long term effects of having IR LEDs shining in your eyes from a half meter or less away from your face.

Of course, the article I linked says, "The majority of infrared (IR) radiation is emitted from the sun, but man-made devices also contribute to its proliferation.", and it goes on to mention, "glassblowers and furnace workers", so why do you feel the need to parrot what was in the article and then ignore the salient points I made in my post?

 

[Nigel]

In one of the revies you could see the light hitting the driver's retinas... and it was actually super bright as his pupils were very dilated.

I noticed that in this review, the A139 had no redeye, while the centre one has a huge amount, unfortunately no Vantrue for comparison:

With the A139, you do have the flexibility to point it maybe 10 degrees towards the passenger seat, so that you get a good view of the front passenger and his window, plus the rear seats, but miss the driver completely.

The LEDs are behind the front plastic sheet that also covers the lens, so they must be substantially back, although they do still cover a wide angle.

 

[RadarRider]

Not sure what your point is.

I made it clear that IR LEDs do not cause cataracts (or scotoma) and I also said that risk is low.

"The most common eye disease associated with near-infrared radiation is cataracts. Prolonged exposure to IR radiation causes a gradual but irreversible opacity of the lens. Other forms of damage to the eye from IR exposure include scotoma, which is a loss of vision due to the damage to the retina."

There is a relationship between near IR intensity and exposure time. Strong IR light can cause damage more quickly. Distance to the light source plays a role as well. Lower power IR light may not necessarily cause cataracts or scotoma but if exposure is prolonged and at close range even low-level IR absorption can apparently "cause symptoms such as redness of the eye, swelling, or hemorrhaging". The fact is that although the risks appear to be very low, we really do not yet know for certain what the long term effects of having IR LEDs shining in your eyes from a half meter or less away from your face while driving for extended periods such as on a long road trip might have on the human eye.

I suppose if I were an Uber driver I would probably use an internal facing IR camera because the benefits of having such a camera probably outweigh the risks shorter term. As a non livery driver I would opt to avoid having IR LEDs shining in my face and eyes for extended periods of time.

um, no! Not worth it, find another way

Near‐Infrared Exposure and Cataracts​

"The most common eye disease associated with near-infrared radiation is cataracts. Prolonged exposure to IR radiation causes a gradual but irreversible opacity of the lens. Other forms of damage to the eye from IR exposure include scotoma, which is a loss of vision due to the damage to the retina. Even low-level IR absorption can cause symptoms such as redness of the eye, swelling, or hemorrhaging."

Sorry Dashmellow... Now I am confused. This is not clear at all. Even a slow drip over time can cause irreversible damage. I am 56 and my vision used to be way above average. Now I need glasses... and I sometimes find it hard to believe people never complain about needing them. It sucks. I would not want to risk (at all) any further eye damage.

But I really really do appreciate and enjoy your posts! Good info.

 

[RadarRider]

So this is a test/review on youtube of the A139 with the rearview mounted above the rear view mirror:


As you can see his retinas are fully lit by the IR.

So that 3-4 nights of 8 hour nighttime driving a week is quite a bit of IR exposure.
Ref:

 

[Dashmellow]

Sorry Dashmellow... Now I am confused. This is not clear at all. Even a slow drip over time can cause irreversible damage. I am 56 and my vision used to be way above average. Now I need glasses... and I sometimes find it hard to believe people never complain about needing them. It sucks. I would not want to risk (at all) any further eye damage.

But I really really do appreciate and enjoy your posts! Good info.

I agree, it is a bit confusing, There is virtually no definitive information about the long term effects from low level artifical IR illumination, especially at close range. It is similar with such things as WiFi. It is still not entirely clear whether it is harmful in the long term to be in the vicinity or sit next to a high frequency radio transmitter like a Wifi router for hours and hours every day. But that is another subject altogether.

I do believe that the risks from IR emitters on CCTV cameras and dash cams are very low but with an in cabin interior dash cam where the IR source is very close to the driver and passenger's face than in most other applications and users can be subjected to this radiation for many hours at a time, we just do not know for certain. This may not cause cataracts but it "could" conceivably negatively affect one's eyesight. With most other IR applications the expose to IR emitters is from far greater distances such as from CCTV cameras and for the most part individuals are not subjected to the IR from CCTV cameras for extremely long periods of time.

One scenario I read about is in industrial settings where workers can be subjected to IR and near IR wavelengths for long periods of time. Various studies have been done and technical reports have been published such as this one form the CDC.- The Biological Effects of Infrared Radiation. (this is an older report from 1982 - IR emiters are far more prevalent now both in industrial and consumer settings) Much of this applies to industrial settings such as foundries, glass making and welding, etc., but there is also a growing recognition that IR emitters are used in various hi tech manufacturing processes and for various communications purposes, sometimes between certain machines and devices (like how your TV remote works but on steroids). For the most part, workers are required to wear protective eye-wear in such settings but obviously we don't usually do that when we are driving.

So, I think you've raised a good question.

I know the feeling about your eyes. At one time, when I was younger I had 20/10 vision. My ophthalmologist explained to me that this was better than the norm of 20/20. Now I need reading glasses and as I get older I've needed stronger glasses.

 

[Nigel]

As you can see his retinas are fully lit by the IR.

Yes, not sure why it shows in that video but not in others, I guess it is darker outside, but it also has a clear view outside so hard to tell.

So that 3-4 nights of 8 hour nighttime driving a week is quite a bit of IR exposure.

But is it dangerous?

This IR light is a frequency just beyond red, it is pretty much normal light except for humans not being able to see it, and at a low level without enough power to cause physical damage through any normal mechanism, so I would consider it as less dangerous than using a mobile phone. Of course people can't agree that mobile phones are safe, and it is impossible to fully prove either way without lifetimes of historical data.

It is a very different situation to glass blowing, which is more like standing in front of an airport radar next to the signs saying "Danger Radiation Hazard, Do Not Enter" and where it has been well proven that people can be killed by the radiation, because they have been!

However, if you are worried, which I fully understand, you could cover up the LEDs and install some separate IR lamps that only cover the rear seats and front passenger seat. There is an option on the A139 to turn the IR lamps off, only issue is that the video will turn a magenta colour if there is IR light about, so putting some black tape over them may be preferable.

 

[Dashmellow]

As you can see his retinas are fully lit by the IR.

So that 3-4 nights of 8 hour nighttime driving a week is quite a bit of IR exposure.

You demonstrate an important point here.

@Nigel likes to mention that infra-red light is prevalent in sunlight, but he leaves out a significant factor in how IR emitters shining directly into your face at close range might potentially have a detrimental affect on your eyes over time.

Should remember that sunlight contains large amounts of near IR relative to what you will get from a dashcam.

When we are out in bright sunlight (which also contains UV light along with infra-red wavelengths), our pupils naturally close down to protect our retinas.

In the darkness of an automobile cabin at night our pupils are nearly fully dilated. So, when subjected to the IR emissions from the LEDs our eyes do not have the natural protection they would have had in full sunlight. So, even if the intensity is low, over a long period of time our retinas are exposed to focused close range IR light in a way that may be more than trivial. (by focused, I mean that LEDs have lenses built into them to project the light emitted by the diode.)

Dilated or normally open pupils are the reason we get red eye in traditional flash photographs, for example. When the camera's flash goes off the subject's pupils are still open so the flash is seen reflecting off the person's retina in the photo. That is the exact same thing that is happening in the screen grab from the A139 video, but unlike during a photo flash, the subject's pupils do not immediately close down, but instead they remain open.

I still believe the risk is probably very low, but the fact is that we really don't know for certain and as far as I am aware, this scenario has not been studied. Full time IR emitters operating inside automotive cabins is quite a new phenomenon.

It reminds me a bit of what has happened over the years with the emergence of flat panel computer screens. In the beginning there were no health concerns, but the longer these screens have been on the market, the more studies have shown how the blue light they emit causes eye strain, can damage your retinas, affects melatonin levels and causes sleep cycle changes. One recent study found that people who work the night shift and are exposed to excess blue light are at greater risk for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers.

 

[Nigel]

When we are out in bright sunlight (which also contains UV light along with infra-red wavelengths), our pupils naturally close down to protect our retinas.

But the IR lights are not as bright as sunshine. We can see from the images that on the A139 they are only filling in the shadows, on some other cameras they have more of a spotlight effect, but on most cameras the background is still reasonably well illuminated except when there are no streetlights. Meanwhile the driver is looking at the results of the headlights, which are far far brighter than the IR, and the driver's pupils will have adjusted for those headlights, not for complete darkness.

 

[Dashmellow]

But the IR lights are not as bright as sunshine. We can see from the images that on the A139 they are only filling in the shadows, on some other cameras they have more of a spotlight effect, but on most cameras the background is still reasonably well illuminated except when there are no streetlights. Meanwhile the driver is looking at the results of the headlights, which are far far brighter than the IR, and the driver's pupils will have adjusted for those headlights, not for complete darkness.

For some peculiar reason you keep repeating this canard about IR lighting not being as strong as sunlight despite the data from the U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory EHS (Environment, Health and Safety Division) that states, "Even low-level IR absorption can cause symptoms such as redness of the eye, swelling, or hemorrhaging", as well as the research report I linked from the CDC that cites duration as a significant factor in IR exposure.

Whatever you may believe you are witnessing of how the IR LEDs from the A139 are illuminating the cabin of the vehicle in the video, how the camera sees the IR illumination has little or nothing to do with how our eyes are absorbing the IR light.

As for the driver's pupils adjusting for headlights, any changes in pupil dilation and contraction would be intermittent and ever changing, and nowhere near the strong pupil contraction that occurs in bright sunshine which is sustained until one leaves the bright sunlit environment.

In addition, people in many locations, especially here in the U.S. often travel vast distances on major interstate highways at night where they encounter very few oncoming vehicles. Then of course, there are many people who live in rural environments as I do where I often drive on pitch black roads at night with no streetlights where I may not encounter another oncoming vehicle for many miles of driving. Even in many suburban environments one may encounter only a few other vehicles at night in some locations and once these oncoming vehicle pass, the driver's pupils will adjust again for low light, thereby again giving the IR emitters of an interior camera full access to the individual's retinas.

​