In one word, No

:-)

=))

Thanks

No!!! :| Due to different spectra.

Here an aproach to get IR an RGB image using a RGB camera :http://cigr.ageng2012.org/images/fotosg/tabla_137_C1122.pdf

may be it is possible, if you will be able to find the colour temperature spectrum of the image cpatured in the visible range and established an impirical formula relating the colour temp of IR and visible either based on intensities or any other parameter.

I am giving you a link here which give you an idea to convert IR image to Visible one, see if you can apply any reverse algorithm

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=4598601&contentType=Conference+Publications

If you just want to do this for simulation, it is easy. Here is a paper to describe the method: http://www.cs.umsl.edu/~sanjiv/publications/iitsec99.pdf

Both work in different spectral band and caputre different information.

Yes！ You can have the visible image amplified by an uV=pumped optical parametric amplification (OPA) with the visible image seeded as the signal beam and it gets amplified at the same wavelength and in the meantie it also generates an IR image as the idler beam due to frequency down conversion. However, due to limited bandth of the OPA, you can only have some of the colors converted. But you can change the central wavelength of the amplified image by rotating the angle of nonlinear medium of the OPA..

IR less energy than visible , theoretically I think you can use stock photon scattering to covert from visible to IR. If there is an image in visible you can separately make a normalized curve by measuring temp. of each color in image then convert your image in term of temperature or can get the relative difference between image area points.

Dear Saed,

You question may have many answers. You ask about the possibility of converting images captured in visible wavelength to infrared image.

As the visible light has specific wave length range also the infrared radiation has wane length ranges. There is the near and far infrared wavelength ranges.Let us assume that you intend the near infrared range, the range below the red. The question now: do you want to display you image in infrared radiation? Or do you want to transmit it by infrared radiation on fiber optics?. The direct conversion of the the image from visible wavelength range to infrared range is commented in the previous answers.

Here, i propose the indirect conversion of the image where the image is converted into an electronic form and the electronic form is displayed by two dimensional infrared diode matrix with the required spatial resolution. The captured image is made in black white form. That is the lumenance component of the image Y .The lumenance component bears the information about the spatial variation of the light intensity emanating from the scene. It is the conventional video signal with the standard definition or any other definition.It has a standard bandwidth of 4,5 MHz. In optical fiber transmission the image signal is made to modulate an infrared carrier wave and is transmitted into infrared form across the optical fibers.

But i ask my self in case of displaying an image using infrared diodes, what will be its uses. Who will see this image? May one use IR to VL glasses. This may find applications in cryptography? So, we may ask Saed about the sense of the subject!

your question can be subdivided into two possibilities: analog or digital image (in the visible range) down converted to the IR range. Analog method depends very much on the material properties, and down conversion of the ranges may not be uniform for the entire visible range. but digital images has no problem. Using FPGA (http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/~strzodka/papers/public/KlErHu_02fpga.pdf) , or specialized media processor eg, http://www.ti.com/lit/ds/symlink/tms320dm6437.pdf from TI, it is possible to digitally process the image and down convert the frequencies to any range you like. Processing in real time may be technically challenging (even with the current GPU state of art, but I may be wrong :-).